Grog hate numbers! Arrrrgh!

As far as sports stats are concerned, football is third - miles behind baseball and quite a ways behind basketball.

So I am all for networks throwing random stats - however silly they may be - at me to look at while Madden tries to pronounce Brandon Manumaleuna. It's cute that they're trying!

Phil Mushnick - who I can only assume is the progenitor of a group of monsters known as the Mushnicks - does not like them there numbers. Not at all.

NBC's two wild-cards,

He means games, I think.

Saturday, were typical NFL telecasts in that they seemed designed by those who don't know better for those who wouldn't know better.

I think "for those who don't know better" would have flowed much better. Also, I just want to watch football. I don't care if they have Scooter, the talking football explaining crossing routes to me.

They were so overloaded with useless, football-is-baseball stats that legit fans might have thought they were watching (or reading) ESPN. Or Fox. Or CBS. Or the NFL Network.

None of those mentioned entities use stats to any in-depth level. ESPN maybe. But the NFL Network has Deion Sanders screaming at me in a checkerboard/paisley suit while dancing and not many stats.

What did it matter that QB passing ratings are created by adding nonsense to silliness, then dividing ridiculous by the square root of stupid?

Hardy har har har.

1. Go to Wikipedia
2. Search "passer rating"
3. Read

Yes, it's esoteric and weird (why not out of 100, please? We like that number), but it also gives us insight into how good a QB is. More so than TDs or wins or numbers of guns slung per game.

Throughout the Falcons-Cards game, NBC not only posted Matt Ryan's rating,

Criminal.

it went micro - when he throws to the right, to the left, when winning, when trailing.

Somewhat interesting, especially considering they then said that most QBs are more comfortable going right.

(Apparently, he hadn't yet thrown in a scoreless or otherwise tied game, nor had he thrown over the middle.)

I'm confused. So you want more stats now?

Despite 22 people in motion at once and hundreds of variables, TV wants you to believe that everyone operates alone, from inside a lab, inside a test tube. TV producers believe it, so should you.

What the hell are you mushnicking about?

No one thinks football is an individual game. Yes, QBs are deified, but no one is dumb enough to think they could do it one on eleven. Football is number one precisely (well, the violence helps) because one can watch it and enjoy any number of a billion things going on, including dreaded stats.

Late in the Colts-Chargers game, headed for the wire, NBC asked us to stop paying attention to the game in order to consider a graphic - the Chargers' record in games determined by "eight or fewer points." Why not show us a kitten pawing at a ball of yarn?

The cat with the yarn ball would be awesome.

The Chargers record in those games: 0-7. I think there is a little something to that. Mostly, that they were unlucky in close games, or, as annoucers would say, "They just couldn't win the close ones."

As it happened, they won this close one. Still, the fact that they hadn't all year is at least bottom-line scroll-worthy.

Late in the third quarter, Ravens' safety Ed Reed, who prevents TDs by scoring them, was injured while returning his second interception. CBS even showed a replay of his leg being bent backward.

And then CBS forgot about him, not a mention as to whether he was in the game during Miami's next two possessions, when he suddenly re-appeared, making a tackle.

Would this have sated you?

"And Ed Reed will be sitting a few plays out with what trainers are calling a sore leg. His return is probable."

*Two friggin playes later*

"Reed is coming back on the field! And I'm not talking about Willis!"

But during that time, CBS posted a graphic comparing this game's score and stats to the 2001 wild card the teams played. Nurse!

And that, inexplicably, is how the article ends.

My anecdotal evidence says: 'NFL Overtime sucks!'

It's NFL playoff time and that means the team/player/coach with the most heart, guts, ability to run the ball/stop said run will obviously win the Super Bowl.

It also means some games may go to overtime, as some teams are equally matched. This happened with San Diego/Indy over the weekend, a game in which the Chargers won after winning the coin flip.

This one instance means the coin flip sucks as a way to "decide who wins" an NFL game.

King me:

The overtime rule continues to be the dumbest, stupidest, most indefensible rule the NFL has on its books. Giving a coin flip more power than Tony Soprano has now deprived us of a satisfactory ending to two pivotal games this year -- Jets-Patriots in Week 11, when the Patriots and 401-yard passer Matt Cassel never saw the ball in overtime after a heroic fourth-quarter comeback, and Colts-Chargers, when we didn't get to see the NFL MVP even play in the fifth quarter because it was a one-possession overtime."

Oh how quickly we forget things that do not support our opinions. In week 16 the Giants and Panthers played a football match that proceeded to go into extra play. The Giants won the flip. Auto-win, right? Well they went three and out and punted. But so did Carolina. The second time around, the Giants win.

So the Giants won the flip and won the game, but both teams had a shot at it. Sounds fair to me.

That brings me to the enemy of anecdotes, mathematics (here, and elsewhere).

There have been 365 OT games from 1974 to 2003 (finding up-to-date stats was difficult). Seventy two percent of the time, teams have each had a possession. Fifty two percent of the time, teams that have won the flip have have won the game. Forty four percent of teams that have lost the flip have won the game, with five percent ending in a tie. Only 28% of teams have won the flip and driven to a score. It is unclear if that means directly scored, or, as in the Giants/Panthers case, simply scored and won the flip.

To me, 52 to 44 is a difference, but not a huge one. Plus, 365 games over thirty years isn't a very substantial sample size. There were 512 games played in 2008 alone, not including the playoffs.

Is it perfect? Obviously not. There are a number of solutions such as a timed OT period, not sudden death or using the idiotic college overtime system - in which teams start at the one-yard line and must only use linemen for quarterbacks.

But the coin flip isn't that bad - it just sticks out when teams who win it, win the game.

And for the record, I think pass interference is the "dumbest, stupidest, most indefensible rule the NFL has on its books."

That, or roughing the kicker. Those guys are wimps.

Nostalgia no one cares about and is wrong

I am about to challenge you to solve the easiest mystery ever. Ready?

There's an article. It's about old quarterbacks.

Guess who's in it?

Here's a fogeyish thing to do. It's the sporting equivalent of babbling about those days when we all had to walk five miles to school through the snow, uphill, both ways.

Great way to start an article. "I am about the whine and complain about something that I remember as being great, but probably was just OK." I am riveted.

Still, here goes: Bob Griese wore glasses in Miami; Steve Grogan ran around like mad in New England; Richard Todd was getting booed in New York ... [massive fucking list of QBs and stupid anecdotes shortened at request of attorney general for causing dissociative disorder] Kenny Stabler was the Snake in Oakland; Steve Fuller was boring in Kansas City.

Now, as I mentioned, there is nothing that sounds more grumpy-old-man than rambling on and on about how quarterbacks used to be better. But that's not what I'm saying -- I doubt very seriously that quarterbacks used to be better. I just think they used to be more famous, more easily remembered, more beloved, more representative of their cities.

This is pretty pointless/silly/wrong/a bunch of other negative traits.

Joe Montana: who? Phil Simms: bum. Jim Kelly: worthless. John Elway: John Whoway?

And as far as modern QBs go, guess what? They're still creating memories. Brady has a bunch. Peyton too. Even little Eli. Big Ben should be pretty great for some time. Tony Romo is pretty much the prototypical definition of a quarterback. I could go on.

That has changed, I think. There are only a handful of quarterbacks these days who pierce the imagination --

"Imaginations pierced" is right under TDs (but above comp. %) on the list of important QB stats.

and with Tom Brady going down in New England and Peyton Manning looking just a wee ancient in Indianapolis, it's more like a carpool.

If Peyton is "a wee bit ancient," Favre is fucking Methuselah.

Let's not forget that Peyton's knee is bursa'ing all over and his first game this season was against a defense two years removed from the Super Bowl. He'll be fine.

Favre played the like 0-16 Dolphins and was one play away from losing to the guy his new team cut.

You have Eli Manning in New York, of course, though you get the sense that some Giants fans are waiting impatiently for the statute of limitations on the Super Bowl miracle to end so they can start booing again.* You have Donovan McNabb in Philadelphia, though he has not started every game in a season since 2003.

You have Tony Romo in Dallas, though he might want to win a playoff game at some point.

McNabb is like tier 1.5 and Eli is like tier five.

Romo is fucking awesome. He's 27. Years old, not years of NFL service. His two seasons, combined:

55 TD/64.8 % comp./32 INT/team 19-7 with him starting.

But didn't. Win. A playoff. Game. Two years into his career as a starter. Trash.

You have Drew, Matt, Carson, Jay, Rivers, Roethlisberger -- good quarterbacks all, but they're probably not sweeping the nation.

Imagination piercing moments from each:

Drew (Brees?) - passed for 4400+ yards in '06, lifted post-Katrina New Orleans.

Matt (Leinart?) - ruled the campus at USC, beer bonged a bunch of co-eds.

Carson (Palmer?) - suffered one of the most egregious cheap shots ever, was awesome before - not so much now.

Rivers - whiny bastard, has LTD to mask shortcomings.

Jay (Cutler?) - started an NFL game, this is kind of a cherry pick, this is like his second full year.

Roethlisberger - won the damn Super Bowl.

Mixed bag? Sure. But all those guys are younger than 28 (some much younger) and have a lot of time to craft solid careers. So shut it, please.

Finally, there's Brett Favre. He is the last quarterback standing, the one guy out there who inspires some of the feelings of those old-time quarterbacks. This is in part because he IS an old-time quarterback; the guy was flinging passes in the NFL before the Soviet Union collapsed. But there's something else here too, something about the way Favre still plays the game, something in the way he flings footballs into double coverage, the way he seems indestructible, the way he throws TERRIBLE interceptions but then comes back and throws absurd touchdown passes.

Wow. This is a beautiful, beautiful mess of lovely writing.

What was just described there is "bad quarterbacking" and yet, Favre = God. Still, lovely prose.

Why the hell is Favre diefied for being both an idiot and a "genius" when other sports stars (Ryan Howard, Adam Dunn and their ilk come to mind) are ripped for the same "all or nothing" style? Or a basketball player who takes - and misses - a ton of shots, but scores at a prolific rate? (I am sure people don't/won't appreciate Iverson as much as they should).

This is foolish.

That's the way it used to be. It's stunning to go back 30 and 40 years and look at the statistics of the quarterback heroes. In 1979, Terry Bradshaw threw 25 interceptions, and he didn't even lead the NFL in that category (that would be my hero Brian Sipe with 26). The only guy to throw 25 or more interceptions in the last seven years ... yeah, that would be Brett Favre in 2005 when he threw 29 of them.

You know what else was different 30-40 years ago? Everything. In 2048 when A-Rod III leads the New York Yankees (sponsored by Viagra) to their fourth straight World Series (sponsored by Fox) title by hitting 90 homers and posting a .600 OBP (BA has been abolished for being dumb), no one will flinch because that will seem normal.

Go tell a baseball writer in 1968 that someday a certain large headed man will walk 232 times (!!!!!!!!) in a season and he will shoot you for being a stoned-out hippie talkin' jive.

Oh and 'grats to Favre for throwing nearly 30 picks.

That's what it used to mean to be a quarterback. That changed. Coaches took over the game. Geniuses started calling plays. Everyone started demanding more prudent football. Defenses got more sophisticated and specialized. Sackers got bigger and stronger and faster and more dangerous. Quarterbacks were told to "manage" the game rather than "win" the game. Passer rating became the in statistic.* Fantasy football became the rage so that now every David Garrard interception in Jacksonville infuriates some doctor in Ann Arbor, some insurance person in Toledo and some farmer in Kansas and some home builder in Orange County.

There's a lot here but I wanted to let it wash over you like a cool rain.

Coaches took over the game. Geniuses started calling plays.

Could that be because the NFL is a multi-billion dollar industry and coaches get paid a shit load of money to succeed? And you're not really complaining that smarter play-calling is taking place, are you?

Everyone started demanding more prudent football.

The 2007 Patriots. The 2000-01 Rams. The Peyton-era Colts.

Those teams were/are the exact opposite of prudent.

Fantasy football became the rage so that now every David Garrard interception in Jacksonville infuriates some doctor in Ann Arbor, some insurance person in Toledo and some farmer in Kansas and some home builder in Orange County.

Out of all the ludicrous reasons why football sucks today compared to 1969, this is one of the dumbest. Football players could give two shits about said men in random places playing a game.

Garrard is a "game manager" because his defense is nuts, he has two above average RBs and not throwing to a quad-covered, mediocre receiver is considered (by brain possessing humans) a good idea. And he has to be.

"You know what's beautiful about the being an old quarterback?" Roman Gabriel once asked. Gabriel's a wonderful guy, he was the NFL MVP in 1969 and the comeback player of the year in 1973. He threw 200 touchdown passes, 150 interceptions, completed about 53 percent of his passes and fumbled 105 times in his career. Those were great numbers long ago.

Wonderful guy? Probably. Wonderful QB? Fuck no. 255 turnovers compared to 200 TDs? In no world are those "great numbers." Even "long ago." Those are "shitty numbers" "today."

Gabs played for 16 seasons and only threw more than 25 TDs - never. 25, 24, 23 are his three highest, followed by 19, 17, 16.

Peyton Manning (from the new era of pussy QBs) has thrown 25+ TDs 10 times in his 10 seasons. 49, 33, 31 (twice) are his three highest.

Things were so much better back when.

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...

Colts Sanders somehow wins defensive player of the year

Indianapolis Colts safety Bob Sanders has won the NFL's Defensive Player of the Year award. After hearing announcers extol his virtues almost every game, including non-Colts games this season, I thought to myself "alright, he probably deserved it." The article is curiously number light and after looking at his stats, it's pretty clear why.

Games - 15
Tackles/Solo - 97/72
PD - 6
Sack - 3.5
FF - 0
INT - 2

Those numbers weren't even good in just the AFC. Tied for 17th in tackles, 41st in sacks and tied for 35th in INTs. Sanders didn't even lead his own team in any defensive statistic. Pretty odd for a DPoY. In the article, Ed Reed's 2004 season was brought up. Reed was the last safety to win. His numbers were nuts, by the way.

Games - 16
Tackles/Solo - 78/67
PD - 17
Sack - 2
FF - 4
INT - 9

Reed also ran back those picks for 358 yards and a touchdown. There's no comparison there, but that's apples and oranges. How about others who deserved it more than Sanders? What about NFL tackle leader and rookie Patrick Willis of San Francisco with his 174 tackles, 4 sacks and 5 passes defended? Or sack leader Jared Allen of Kansas City with 15.5 sacks, 65 tackles and 3 forced fumbles. Haynesworth in Tennessee and Kerney in Seattle also deserve it more than Sanders.

Unlike (?) the MVP award, I didn't think there was any debate about "valuable" in the DPoY - just the guy with the best defensive numbers. Even so, if you take Sanders off the Colts, I am pretty sure an average safety would fill in his numbers. Maybe he wouldn't be as "smash mouth" or have as many "highlight film" plays. But I bet he would get 60-80 tackles and 1-2 INTs.

I guess awarding the "best" player on the team with the best defense is what the award is about. Change the name to Defensive MVP not Defensive Player of the Year. Or they could just give it to people who deserve it. That could work too.

Countdown to Armageddon

David versus Goliath. Satan vs. God. Schwarzenegger vs. The Predator. Mario vs. Bowser. All epic chapters in the struggle of good versus evil. You can now add 2007 Patriots v. Colts to that list.

This isn’t the game of the decade or century – this is the game of the millennium - probably of all time.

On one side there is Bill Belichick and his hoard of ruthless, bloodthirsty thugs hell-bent on obliterating all opposition that stands before them. Wrongfully accused of cheating by the NFL, Kaiser Belichick has commanded his troops to take no prisoners on their path to vengeance.

Tom Brady – the Darth Vader to Belichick’s Emperor Palpatine – has eviscerated opponents to the tune of 30 touchdowns to 2 interceptions over his first games and is on pace to re-write the record books in his opponents blood. Almost all his touchdown passes have come with opponents already conceding defeat, often down by 30 or more points in the third or fourth periods.

Aiding Brady and Belichick on their quest to shame the game of football and the institution of the NFL is their new receiving corps. Made up of “to the highest bidder” mercenaries (many of whom have criminal records), this group’s only loyalty lies in their desire to see their enemies' will broken and bodies' beaten down.

Randy “Baby Eater” Moss has caught 11 touchdowns, all the while constantly trash talking opposing defenses, dogging it on plays that aren’t centered on him and doing inappropriate end-zone celebrations – much to the delight of the classless Belichick. Wes “White Supremacy” Welker has six TD’s on the season and is currently under investigation by the FBI for possible ties to international terrorism. Donte “Spits-In-Your-Face” Stallworth has three touchdown catches this season – with his longest catch going for the completely inappropriate 69 yards.

Playing the Spartans to Belichick’s Persian Army are the pure and darling Indianapolis Colts. Tony Dungy has compiled a happy-go-lucky cast of God-fearing gentlemen who just “want to play the game the way it was meant to be played.” Defending Super Bowl champs, the Colts have quietly gone about their business this season - often kneeling three times and punting once they take leads of more than six points. Known to shake the hands of each and every member of the opposing organization (including ball boys, camera men, owners and cheerleaders) after victories, the Colts are without a doubt the classiest team to ever play professional sports.

The team’s leader, Peyton Manning, came from humble beginnings. Selected in the sixth round with the 199^th pick in the NFL draft, it took a freak injury to incumbent starter Drew Bledsoe for Manning to take the reins. He went on to win numerous Super Bowls, all the while staying humble and out of the public eye. Manning owns the single season touchdown record and “would be delighted” if Brady were to break it. Funny, good looking, a great actor and one hell of a football player, Manning embodies what it means to be a man – almost as much as Bret Favre does.

Manning’s primary targets are the handsome and friendly Marvin Harrison and Reggie Wayne. Life-long Colts, these two Jerry Rice-like players represent what it means to be wide-outs. They are known to never complain about opposing defensive backs rough, physical play – often complimenting them if they are shut down in AFC Championship games. They play through injuries, have never taken off a single play, block for their running backs and give every touchdown ball they catch to children diagnosed with cancer.

So the stage is set between these two historic rivals. It will undoubtedly be the greatest game ever played – not only in football, but in any sport. The game will rival the legendary Stanford/Cal “the band is on the field” game. There will be an enormous 30+ point comeback that will be better than the Bills/Oilers playoff game in 1993. Trick plays will be run similar to the Oklahoma/Boise State Fiesta Bowl in 2007. Oh yeah, that Trinity High 15 lateral play – that’s nothing compared to what the Colts have planned for the opening kickoff. Red Sox/Yankees in the 2004 ALCS? Forget that. The 2007 sudden death MLB contest featuring the Rockies/Padres? Less drama than a high school play. The “Miracle on Ice” between USSR/USA? Getting there, but still not even close.

This game will be most like World War II, except if the Axis were crushing opposing armies by 25.5 thousand casualties per battle and running up the death count. God help us all if Belichick (Hitler) and Brady (Mussolini) are victorious over Dungy (Roosevelt) and Manning (Churchill) in the war game of the millennium.