LiveBall Sports

It hasn’t been the kind of season that Lions quarterback Matthew Stafford was hoping for.  Stafford is asked to do a lot.  He leads the NFL in passing attempts.  And he’s averaging more than 300 yards per game.  But as you may imagine for a young quarterback asked to throw that many times, it didn’t always work.  In losses this year, Stafford posted underwhemling statlines like 15 for 32 for 183 yards and a touchdown (vs. Atlanta), 33 for 63 for 329 and a touchdown with four interceptions (at Chicago), 32 for 45 for 276 yards and a touchdown with three interceptions (vs. Green Bay on Thanksgiving), and a 227 yard effort at home against Minnesota in a game where the Lions barely held on to go to 8-5.

It hasn’t always been easy for Matthew Stafford, which is an emotion I attempted to capture in this December 9th article on the Lions.  So what’s the difference on a Lions team that has gone 3-0 since that article was written and has beaten two AFC West teams fighting for their playoff lives?  Well, at some point during the Oakland game, it’s possible that the difference has been quarterback Matthew Stafford.

Stafford struggled for much of the Raiders game, and on a 4th quarter drive that the Lions coaches on the sideline called a “must have,” Stafford treated it as such: he tried to make a play down the field outside the pocket, looking for Calvin Johnson.  Raiders DT Tommy Kelly stripped the desperate Stafford, and LB Aaron Curry recovered the fumble for a Raiders touchdown to go up 27-14.  Kelly had put the Lions playoff hopes on life support.

But there was a catch.  Matthew Stafford’s performance since that play by the Raiders looks like this: 38 for 54 for 516 yards, 5 TDs, and 0 INTs.  And two wins.  The sample size is too small to suggest that Stafford has turned a corner as of late.  But he has 8 TD passes to no interceptions since the Lions last loss.  And against the Chargers at home with a chance to send his team to the playoffs, Stafford looked like the best player on the field on either team.  He was sensational.

The Lions can only go somewhere in the playoffs if this is the real Matt Stafford.  They simply never developed any semblance of a run game.  Stafford leads the league in attempts because all the Lions can do to move the football is throw it.  The Lions know their personnel as well as anyone, and Jim Schwartz readily admits: his team has no running game.  They’ll run it to run out the clock, but that’s it.  Their short yardage game is non-existent. Their offensive line can hold up in pass protection, but it is not a group that can move anyone off the ball.  When you add to that the fact that the Lions’ top two highly drafted picks at running back (Jahvid Best and Mikel LeShoure) are both on injured reserve, you could forgive the Lions for throwing more than 40 times a game.

It just means that the Lions are incredibly sensitive to a poor performance by Matthew Stafford in the playoffs.  So he needs to go into Green Bay, play like he has the last two weeks if for no other reason than to give the Lions coaching staff confidence to use the Lions’ best or riskiest passing plays in the playoffs.

It should be pointed out that a team like the Lions even winning a single playoff game would be a minor upset.  Teams built like the Lions are supposed to get exposed by playoff teams as the Lions did when they played the 49ers and Falcons at home in consecutive weeks, or when they played the Bears at the height of their health this year, or when they played the Packers on Thanksgiving, or when they tried to come off that Thanksgiving game and win at the Superdome against the Saints.  For the most part, playoff bound teams have exposed the Detroit Lions as something less than that.

Which is why what the Lions have done the last two weeks is so interesting.  They’ve faced two pretty good football teams in Oakland and San Diego, and erased a huge lead by the Raiders and blew out the Chargers.  Those games don’t fit with the narrative that the Lions are supposed to be exposed on the road and against good teams.  The Packers will be resting players, so the Lions have little to prove outside of keeping Matthew Stafford in rhythm and getting yards in chunks down the field.  Barring the outcome of that meaningless game, the Lions will enter the playoff field without a win over a team that is currently in the playoff field (though the Cowboys can win and get in in Week 17).

As I wrote about the Falcons last week, the Lions would be best served to get the five seed so that they can play a very beatable NFC East champ.  That will be a road game, but if the Lions can go get that win next week against Green Bay, then continue the streak in Dallas/New York, you will have a really interesting shot by the Lions to go a lot deeper.  They could draw San Francisco in the divisional round via this route, and avoid their banes in the first two rounds: New Orleans and Green Bay.

At that point, we’re talking about the Lions being in the NFC Championship game by circumstance of beating two teams who many question as legitimate playoff teams (for the record, I would pick San Francisco over Detroit in the divisional round, but we’re going to ignore that because…look at the title of this article).  Then we’re looking at Detroit needing to upset the Packers at Lambeau Field for the second time this month, which could easily happen.

The Lions will need Stafford to play like he has of late, and they will need Calvin Johnson to play like he did at the beginning of the season.  They will need their defense to show up, be able to harass the passer, and be able to protect it’s LBs against the run.  The Lions were paper thin in the secondary the last time they played Green Bay, and we’ll get to see how well built they are to take on the Packers in the playoffs.  We know from the Thanksgiving day game that the Lions defense can give the Packers offense fits in spurts, but what we didn’t see that day was an offense that could match the Packers.  We have seen that Lions offense in recent weeks.

In their best form, the Lions are a poor man’s Packers.  If the Lions can win the super bowl, it will take a super effort from a couple of players that the Lions spent the mega bucks on in the draft and free agency.  The Lions have proved in the last two weeks that they are built to be a threat in the playoffs now.  With that said, it would be an upset if they made any noise in the postseason.  This is still a very young team, a very immature team.  No one will be picking the Lions to do any damage in the playoffs to anyone but themselves.  However, the talent to win the super bowl is already in place.  For the Detroit Lions to pay off their first playoff season in 12 years with a super bowl appearance, a couple of very young Lions are going to have to lead the rest of the team past opponents who come into this playoff season far more tested, if not proven.

2011 has been a banner year for quarterback injuries.  A week ago, I wrote about that, examining the quality of the injury replacements.  In many cases, the analysis was a simple acceptance of the fact that this team or that team were not prepared to survive the loss of their starting quarterback.

In a typical year, NFL quarterback supply (guys who are ready to go into the game and try to win) typically exceeds the number of teams by about one and a half times.  In a league with 32 teams, there are roughly about 50 quarterbacks with either the experience and the ability to perform at the level expected of an NFL player.  In 2011, a ton of starting quarterbacks got hurt, and the performance of the backups was remarkably disappointing.  In past years, there was never a significant issue with quarterback supply: teams that wanted to improve at the quarterback position and knew how to do it typically could without giving up very many resources.  In 2011, this really wasn’t the case, at least after the draft passed.

A back-of-the-napkin look through an NFL players database shows about 62 names of players on rosters who can perform at an NFL level, about two per team.  But currently 16 of those players are too injured to perform.  It’s not uncommon at the end of an NFL season to have a significant amount of injuries, but there are teams playing guys without NFL ability because of these injuries and because they were not able to do anything to acquire another quarterback.  That means that the NFL is currently rotating through 46 players who are able and healthy enough to play this upcoming week.  The Steelers will be starting Charlie Batch against Kellen Clemens for the Rams this week.

It isn’t just those teams.  For every team like the Lions that goes three deep at the QB position with guys who can run their system in relief of the starter, there are teams like Washington, the New York Jets, Tampa Bay, Jacksonville, San Francisco, Seattle, St. Louis, and Kansas City who went into the season one deep at the QB position.  Some like the Jets did it arrogantly, others like the Redskins did it delusionally.  The Jaguars did it tragically.  For whatever reason, this year of the lockout, 2011, has featured a sharp decline of quarterback supply.  Retirements from guys like Brett Favre are one reason, and the lack of development of the quarterback draft classes of 2009 and 2010 represents another reason.  Beyond that, coaches change teams all the time and that contributes to the disparity of backup quarterbacks.  A quarter of the league has two or three guys who can take the field in this league, a quarter of the league has one, if that.  Most of the league has a starter, and a backup.  But it is not as certain as in past years that teams will be able to afford a backup that they trust.  A quarter of the teams in this league did not even enter the season with a contingency plan at quarterback.

The Houston Texans were fortunate: they re-signed Matt Leinart after drafting T.J. Yates in the sixth round, despite having an established (if injury prone) franchise quarterback.  Prior to that, Rex Grossman and Dan Orlovsky (both part of the 62 figure from my count) had served as backup quarterbacks on the Texans.  Quarterback depth is still very important to the Texans, and that’s one of the reasons their 2011 season is still very live, even after a pair of crushing losses.

With an unprecedented amount of players coming off of IR this offseason, a strong 2012 QB draft class, and the natural development of the 2011 rookie class, this dip in quarterback supply is going to end up being just a blip on the radar.  There will be more than enough quarterbacks for every team to go two deep next year.  It doesn’t seem like many of these QB injuries are career-threatening with a couple of exceptions (Jon Kitna – age, Peyton Manning – neck).  Guys like David Garrard and Chad Henne are going to get right back into the game next season.

Still, this could end up being a major storyline in the playoffs.  The Jets: Mark Sanchez is backed up by 41 year old Mark Brunell.  The 49ers: Alex Smith is backed up by a pair of rookies, Colin Kaepernick and Scott Tolzien.  The Steelers: Ben Roethlisberger is banged up and Charlie Batch is going to have to play (and stay healthy).  The Texans: T.J. Yates is in as a rookie because of injury.  The Ravens: Joe Flacco is backed up by Tyrod Taylor.  The supply of NFL quarterbacks typically mitigates the arguments that teams can blame injury luck at the quarterback position for their misfortune.  To me, teams should have long been better prepared for this.  But this year, even the well prepared teams are down to their last legs at the quarterback position.

The quarterbacks page at Football Outsiders paints this picture well.  The top 32 quarterbacks in both DYAR and DVOA have performed adequately this year.  32 just happens to be the number of teams in the NFL who need performance from their quarterback (all of them).  On the list of 32, there are two Houston quarterbacks (Schaub and Yates), two Oakland quarterbacks (Campbell and Palmer), two Miami quarterbacks (Moore and Henne), and a 33rd player just below the minimum attempts threshold (which is 100 passes), Jake Locker, making two Tennessee quarterbacks (Locker and Hasselbeck).  The three teams that don’t have a quarterback on the list of 32: Arizona, St. Louis, Jacksonville.

In all three of those cases, the projected starter going into camp has struggled with injury.

In Arizona’s case, they were fortunate to find some unexpected depth on their own roster in John Skelton, but having Skelton perform now does nothing to solve the long term issue of the Cardinals quarterback situation.  But quarterback depth (nothing behind or challenging Sam Bradford) and Jacksonville (forcing Gabbert to play after Garrard release because Luke McCown was unplayable) is the story to these teams’ seasons.

It will be interesting to see if teams put more of a premium on rostering backup quarterbacks in the future.  There will certainly be a greater supply in 2012.

With a resounding victory over the Jacksonville Jaguars in Week 15, the Atlanta Falcons separated themselves from the pack and put themselves in position to win 10 games this season.  They will clinch a playoff spot at that point.  But of all the wild card teams in either conference, it’s the Falcons that will be drawing the easiest first round match-up, in likelihood.

It’s a welcome difference for a team that drew the toughest divisional round match-up in the playoffs last year.  The Falcons didn’t really even play all that poorly against the Packers in the divisional playoffs next year,  they simply found themselves in the way of Aaron Rodgers.  The Falcons have shown a very pronounced home/road split under head coach Mike Smith, but that has (predictably) weakened this year, and so it may be fitting — if the Falcons make a run this year — that the Falcons are doing it on the road.

While the AFC field is interesting because 75% of the ‘old guard’ (minus the Colts) are right at the top of the conference yet again, the Faclons may be sitting prettiest in the NFC field simply because it’s become a quarterback field in the NFC (Brees, Rodgers, Eli, Romo, Vick, Cutler, and soon Cam Newton and Josh Freeman).  All those players except perhaps Brees will be in their primes over the next three years as the old guard of the AFC (Manning, Brady, maybe Schaub) decline.  The fact that it has become a quarterback field makes the Falcons the most interesting team of all in that conference.

The Falcons are not, and have never been under Mike Smith, a quarterback dependent team.  Until this year, everything Atlanta did was based off Michael Turner and the running game and the offensive line.  Roddy White may be a great receiver who can do it all, but the Falcons have long been contented to use White in a role that keeps him between the numbers and underneath the LB level racking up catches to stay on schedule.  White has flashed the ability to be Reggie Wayne of the next five years, but the Falcons have gone out of their way with Tony Gonzalez and White to protect Ryan.  When the Falcons have spread the field this year with Ryan in the gun, they have had to endure uneven, even disappointing results.  Ryan doesn’t always make the right reads, and sometimes he does make the right read, and gets the ball to rookie Julio Jones in a one on one, and Jones isn’t ready to come through yet.

I think you can see how difficult the Falcons are going to be to defend in the future, but the multiplicity of the Falcons still depends heavily on Michael Turner.  It’s not clear what the Falcons will get in the future from Turner, but right now, they still have one of the better backs in the NFL carrying the football.  And because the Falcons ground game is so tough to defend, Matt Ryan gets a couple great looks down the seams a game off of play action.

I think it’s difficult to put Matt Ryan in the class of those other guys in the NFC, but if you just judge him and his Falcons against Tony Romo’s Cowboys, Eli Manning’s Giants, Aaron Rodgers’ Packers, and Drew Brees’ Saints; Matt Ryan plays for the NFC team that isn’t consistently blowing coverages left and right, has and leans on it’s running game for more than just conservative effect, and has the veterans around him trying to reach levels they never have before.  The burden on Ryan to succeed in the playoffs will be there, but Ryan’s infrastructure is much better than anyone else in this field.  And even though he’s probably not, Matt Ryan can masquerade as one of the NFC’s best quarterbacks in the super bowl should the Falcons get there, similarly to a guy like Matt Hasselbeck in 2005.

If the current seeding in the NFC was to hold, the Falcons would draw the Giants/Cowboys winner in the first round on the road, two teams that really do not enjoy much of a home field advantage.  And then the Falcons can go to Green Bay to ruin the Packers season.

There are three defenses in or around the NFC playoff field that can give the Packers the kind of fits that the Chiefs just did.  The Falcons are one of those teams.  As are the 49ers, and the Bears.  A couple of problems with the 49ers challenging the Packers: they have weaknesses in their secondary, and typically haven’t had to use their nickle defense extensively in wins.  Beyond that, the 49ers win in a very formulaic manner.  It is unlikely they could beat a full strength Packers team playing like they currently do.  The Bears absolutely could, but the thing that would ruin the Bears chances against the Packers (lack of competency on offense) is also going to ruin the Bears’ chances of getting in the postseason field.  The Falcons, once they get in, pose the largest threat to the Packers, because they can give them a game on defense, and unlike the other defense-only NFC teams, the Falcons can put Matt Ryan on the field, drop him back, and scheme to attack the weaknesses of the Packers.

The roadblock that would stand between the Falcons and a super bowl run is a trip to the Superdome to play the Saints, something the Falcons have to do this Monday night, because that’s what the regular season schedule stands.  When Saints defensive coordinator Gregg Williams gets a read on how to frustrate a quarterback, he has the ability to make players like Ryan look very average, and can do it while loading the box to limit Turner.  The easiest path for the Falcons to get to the super bowl is to avoid the Saints by hoping the Saints get shipped off to San Francisco or Green Bay before the Falcons have to play their division rivals.  Pending the outcome of this week’s game, there are still improvements and adjustments to be made by the Saints offense against the Falcons defense.  But trying to make those adjustments on the fly to catch Drew Brees on the scoreboard is not a particularly fun or practical way of playing in Indianapolis this February.

So yes, the case for the Atlanta Falcons to win the super bowl this season isn’t airtight.  No team is going to be favored to beat the Green Bay Packers in the playoffs, and the Saints have long been a thorn in the side of the Falcons.  If it came to an Atlanta at San Francisco championship game, Atlanta might be favored on the road, but passing that test is far from a certainty.  It’s just that when you examine the wild card contenders: the Jets, the Steelers, the Bengals, the Lions, the Seahawks, or the Cardinals, that it becomes favorable to believe in what the Falcons are doing right now.  They have a much better makeup as a playoff team than they had in either of the prior two years.

Three years ago, the Falcons were the 2011 49ers.  They were protecting a very successful quarterback and winning according to formula.  They could not overcome Kurt Warner and the high flying Cardinals in a playoff game.  Last year, their offensive was highly efficient, but limited, and their defense was a weak point.  The Packers ate that up.  This year, the Falcons are much more multiple, have a much more high-powered offense that, at times, looks almost limited by a pretty darn good NFL quarterback, and a weak offensive line.  That potential, combined with a resurgent defense, and a tried and true running game makes the Falcons a very interesting pick in the NFC as potentially the most complete team in the NFC.

There are two very unique outputs from the waning weeks of the 2011 NFL season.  These two outputs are not unrelated.  First, there have been a good percentage of awful performances by quarterbacks over the last three or four weeks.  Secondly, there has been more discussion about doing ‘whatever it takes’ to position oneself to draft at the top of next year’s NFL Draft than ever before.

So, naturally, it’s the teams that are suffering from awful performances by their quarterbacks that are talking about getting into position to draft a more different quarterback in April.  But realistically, not all the teams that are in position to draft a new quarterback are going to draft one.  There are a lot of different variables that the fans of teams don’t account for when pushing for their own teams to lose out.  Is it really more valuable to a franchise to pick higher in the first round?

The short answer is that yes, it is, because draft resources are so finite and valuable.  Teams pay more to higher draft picks (though not quite as much on a marginal basis as in the prior CBA).  But the additional cash outlay ends up being money well spent because you are paying for additional control of the results of your draft.  You can have the best scouting resources and methodology in the league, as well as the league’s premier decision makers, but it’s going to be much easier for a team drafting six picks ahead of you to produce a great draft even if they don’t have your personnel resources.

Anyway, I did a study using 10 years of draft data from 1997-2006, and then I compared the average career Approximate Value of the players in the data sets, while testing the variable of which part of the draft the picks were made in to determine how valuable high picks were.  I will share with you some of the more unscientific observations of my findings.

The team with the first overall pick matters, but only because of the “generational talent”

In 80-90% of all years, having the first overall pick is not a particular advantage.  In general, there are a finite number of elite talents in every draft, some years there are just two or three, and in other years, there are seven or eight.  But every five years or so, the NFL produces a player such as Peyton Manning, Michael Vick, or you know, Andrew Luck (it’s an interesting debate whether or not there may be a second generational talent in this draft, such as RGIII or Trent Richardson).  In years where there is a well known generational talent, having the first overall pick is probably more than 150% more valuable than having another random pick in the first round, and perhaps 100% more valuable than having any other pick in the round (second overall, in this case).

Overall, the first overall pick came out about 55% more valuable than a random pick in the first round.  However, in most years, it’s worth pointing out that there’s no discernible difference in having the right to choose between the player who goes first overall and the player who goes third overall or even the player who goes fifth overall.  Plenty of that might simply be a reflection of who is doing the choosing: you don’t get the first overall pick by building a bunch of division winning teams.  But if there are a group of elite talents in any given draft with an abnormally high rate of success, the ability to pick one over another does not overtly increase the value of a draft pick.

There is no trend that shows having the second or third pick is more valuable to a franchise than having the fourth, fifth, or sixth pick

And it’s this finding that makes the fact that there are so few trades into the top five picks so interesting.  Teams that have the first, second, or third picks typically don’t have a lot of serious suitors for their picks.  Instead they get a selection of buyers offers, which they typically pass on to pick the players they like the best.  In some years (2007 for example), there are one or two top picks but by fourth overall, teams are picking from their favorites from a second tier of players.  Even then, no incentive exists for teams to pay to get a top two or three pick.

Additionally, in no draft during this study did the first and second overall picks both become elite players.  The best no. 2 overall picks in the sample: Donovan McNabb (105 career AV), Julius Peppers (97 career AV), and Leonard Davis (64 career AV)?  Michael Vick was the first pick in the Davis draft, but Davis hardly qualifies as an elite professional.  The best third overall picks in this study: Andre Johnson (73 career AV), Shawn Springs (62 career AV), and a near tie between Larry Fitzgerald (58) and Chris Samuels (57).

Generally speaking, top five picks did just as well as top three picks over the sample I looked at.

Top 10 picks do well for the money compared to Top 5 picks

But at some point, there is a drop-off between the expected return on the tenth overall pick and on a top five pick.  Elite performers rarely make it through the first nine picks, and the elite performers who do make it that far seem to be likely to fall further.  For every Willie Anderson or Terrell Suggs, there is a JJ Stokes or a Dunta Robinson.

But having a top ten pick is definitely still an advantage compared to having a random pick in the first round, to the tune of having a random pick in the top ten being worth about 20% in total career value more than a random pick anywhere in the first round.  Compared to the average top five pick, it’s actually a bargain (dollar for dollar) to pick between 6th and 10th.

The cost of contending for the playoffs is meaningful

Teams that pick below 11th in the first round receive, on average, a 11% lower return in career AV than a random pick anywhere in the first round.  That means that teams that win at least seven games are more likely to “lose” value in the first round compared to the rest of the league, all else equal (all else is hardly ever equal, and smart teams capitalize on other teams who won’t pick in the top ten).  So yeah, the Philadelphia Eagles are incurring a significant cost in terms of future franchise value because they are winning games after starting the season 4-8, and are now a three step process away from winning the NFC East and making the playoffs.  One more win will force the Eagles into the middle of the first round.  Their last two first round picks, DE Brandon Graham and OL Danny Watkins, have yet to produce a successful season between them.

I did not discover a particular cost paid by teams who pick 21st or lower, meaning that once you are competing for the playoffs, there’s no cost to your franchise (at least in the NFL draft) for making it.  The average 15th overall pick does minimally better than the average 26th overall pick.

How to rebuild a franchise by picking high every year

If you keep picking in the top 6, 7, or 8 for multiple years in a row, and you keep connecting on elite draft performers, that’s the simplest and easiest way to go from worst to first in the NFL.  However, that leaves one conundrum unsolved: pieces for the passing game, offensive skill talents.  There is a premium on these performers compared to other elite performers, and at least in the case of receivers and quarterbacks, a high bust rate exists in the top ten.

In my estimation, drafting receivers and quarterbacks down the board in the first round makes the most sense because that is where the values are found at those positions.  The problem is that to get to the point where you are winning games and picking in the middle of the round (as opposed to trading down), you have to be able to get some sort of meaningful production out of your current passing game.  And it’s teams that are winning and getting production from their passing offenses that are the least likely to make the changes to their passing game using draft picks, and that could be skewing the values we see in the numbers around this part of the draft.  With receivers and quarterbacks being so highly drafted early in the first round, this could be creating the effect which makes all top ten draft picks look the same from a value perspective.

To test this effect, I isolated offensive skill positions (QB, RB, WR, TE) from the rest of the draft and increased the sample size by two years to help offset the effect of a smaller sample.

There is no difference in the value of QB/RB/WR/TE beyond the tenth pick compared to all positions, relative to having a random pick in the first round

That does dispute my prior assumption that teams should target QBs or WRs later in the first round because their is better value.  If the need is at other positions, and the value is at other positions, teams should take the best player available according to need.

There is a big difference between having a top five pick and top ten pick when isolated to just offensive skill positions

There it is.  The players that really make a difference for franchises and who have elite draft grades: the quarterbacks, the receivers, the runners: teams who pick in the top five or six do not leave these players for other franchises to have like they do at other positions.  That’s why Julio Jones and A.J. Green went so quickly in the 2011 draft, and it’s also why there was a run on quarterbacks around the turn in the first ten picks in this past draft.  The natural risk associated with these positions means that this pushes sounder draft prospects at other positions such as defense and offensive line down the board towards the next five picks, where it makes sense to pick the remaining elite prospects.

There was a very large difference in the quality of QB/RB/WR/TE picked between 6th and 10th, and all other positions.  Of course, this sample did not include Adrian Peterson’s selection from 2007, but did include all of Matt Millen’s picks at skill positions.  In fact, this study over the course of ten years may have great insight into why Millen had so little success in the draft.

No team consistently picks in the top five in the NFL draft.  Top ten, sure, but a two win variance in finish can be the difference between picking 3rd and picking 9th, even if the team isn’t any better.  From 1997 to 2006, teams who selected QB/RB/WR/TE between 6th and 10th in the NFL draft received the production of a random QB/RB/WR/TE taken anywhere in the first round.  It was not a profitable use of a top ten draft selection compared to other positions.  And Matt Millen was one of the biggest perpetrators of that phenomenon.

Conclusions

There is a meaningful value to having a top ten pick as opposed to not having a top ten pick in terms of being able to land one of the elite talents of the draft.  But on average, if that elite talent plays offense and can throw or catch footballs, the stock of the player is driven up inside the top five or six picks.  Even elite pass rushers, on average, are not selected quite as high as players who affect quality of a team’s passing offense.  Players who play these positions come with an inherently high level of draft risk, but the opportunity to draft players on this list is rare and valuable.

And it suggests that the right to choose between Darrius Heyward Bey and Michael Crabtree may seem like it has an obvious answer, but that the differences between the two players are far more marginal than one may realize.

Baltimore Ravens quarterback Joe Flacco has suffered a significant statistical decline in his fourth season.  I don’t think it’s that his development has stalled any, because Flacco seems more aware of the dangers of an NFL pocket than at any point in the past.  I think this is a systematic decline.  Flacco is at a point in his career where he is in transition between being an important missing piece on a perennial super bowl contender and being the quarterback and emotional leader of the Baltimore Ravens.

Flacco has improved in his decision making, ability to manipulate coverages, and pocket presence this season.  But in the process of taking those handcuffs off, Flacco’s completion percentage has fallen to a barely playable 56.6%, and that has driven down Flacco’s yards per attempt more than a half yard to 6.7.  Because how often a player completes passes and how many yards he completes passes for are the primary factors in how often a quarterback gets his team in the end zone, Flacco has thrown for only 15 TDs, a rate of 3.2%.

This statistical regression by a young quarterback isn’t unheard of.  It got me thinking of the last time a quarterback had his fourth season numbers fall at or below his career averages while leading a team to the playoffs yet again.  The name I came up with? Eli Manning.  During the Giants super bowl season.  If a player must take a step back before he can take the ‘Giant’ leap forward, Manning shows that Flacco may not be far away from perennial pro bowl consideration in the AFC.  And after four long years of being invested in Flacco with limited return, following a decade since the last good season by a Baltimore quarterback (Vinny Testaverde, 1998), Flacco’s development could be a game changer for the Ravens franchise as Ray Lewis and Ed Reed near retirement.

What’s different for the Ravens this year?  Well, you finally get the feeling that the offensive pieces to win the super bowl are finally on the roster.  In other seasons you could make the case that the Ravens were capable making a super bowl run because of Ray Rice’s season in 2009, or because of the strength of the offensive line in 2008 or 2009.  But even though Flacco’s numbers remained stagnant in 2010, Ray Rice really struggled behind an offensive line that also struggled.  Flacco became a bit more tentative and cautious.  Still, it seemed that the Ravens were hot at the right time and that 2010 should have been the year they represented the AFC in the super bowl.  But in the second half of the divisional round in Pittsburgh, everything went wrong.  The Ravens blew a huge halftime lead 8 minutes into the second half.  And when a last ditch effort to tie the game fell short, it’s Pittsburgh who went on the short track to the super bowl again.

The Ravens may have been hurt more by the new kickoff rule than any other team this year: they had the kicker most proficient at booting touchbacks under the old rules (touchbacks just aren’t as valuable in 2011), and they have struggled with turnovers on kick returns this year.  But offensively and defensively, the Baltimore Ravens have been a better team in 2011 than in 2010, and I think this is a fact that shocked anyone who saw their defense perform at the end of last year or even into this preseason.  When you compare the independent facts that Baltimore really blew a great chance to go to the super bowl last year with the fact that they are a better team this year, it’s hard not to call the Baltimore Ravens the favorite in the AFC.

The Ravens, Texans, and Patriots are all tied in record and conference losses, so if all three teams won out, the seeding would be decided on the strength of victory tiebreaker (also, the Ravens have a head to head win over the Texans, should the Patriots fall out of this field one way or another).  The Patriots don’t have a whole lot of wins over 10 win teams (the Jets will probably get there, and they have a shot to beat the Broncos this week) and have feasted on teams like the Dolphins, Colts, Eagles, Redskins and Chiefs.  This while the Ravens have already beaten the Jets, Texans, 49ers, and Steelers twice, while a strength of victory tiebreaker favors the Ravens simply because their losses have come to teams without very many wins (Titans, Jaguars, and Seahawks).

An elite team would have won by blowout in all three of those games, and the Ravens did not.  But it’s worth pointing out that the Ravens have blown out a number of their opponents this year, including Pittsburgh, who some think is the second best team in football, a potential playoff team in the Jets, and the Ravens also beat the Texans by a strong amount.  But they also had to come back to win against the Cardinals at home.

Despite allegations of schizophrenia, the Ravens are poised and ready to be lead through the playoff field by Joe Flacco for the first time.  Flacco made a career off of utilizing the unique talents of Derrick Mason, a remarkable veteran receiver up until this year.  He now has players like Anquan Boldin, Torrey Smith, and Dennis Pitta who complement each other with the depth of their preferred route.  Tight end Ed Dickson is a good looking prospect, though to me it just isn’t clear how quickly he will develop (Dickson is averaging a shockingly low 9.5 yards per catch and just 3 TDs this season).  Flacco’s offensive line is much improved, with RG Marshal Yanda having a pro bowl type of season.

And let’s play this game: lets say that New England and Pittsburgh make the playoffs, but are knocked out in the first round by some combination of the Denver Broncos, Oakland Raiders, or New York Jets.  Now in the AFC field, your starting quarterbacks are Joe Flacco, T.J. Yates, Mark Sanchez, and Tim Tebow or Carson Palmer or Jason Campbell.  As soon as Pittsburgh or New England drop out, having Flacco behind center becomes an asset.  And with the way New England is struggling on defense and the way Pittsburgh has struggled against Baltimore twice this season, there is no playoff matchup where the Ravens would not be favored, if they can just hold on to homefield advantage by winning out.

Whoever comes out of the NFC, we’re bound to have a storyline of a great offensive team going up against an elite defensive team.  But what could slip by the public consciousness during super bowl week if the Ravens are a participant is how prepared for the spotlight Joe Flacco is after last year and even the first half of this season.  The Ravens are running out of time to make a run with this group of veterans.  But if the Ravens offense continues to look as dominant as it has the past three weeks or so, guys like Ray Lewis and Terrell Suggs and Ed Reed are going to have just enough time to go down in history as World Champions.

And at that point, we’ll have to decide whether to put Ozzie Newsome into the hall of fame a second time, or just amend his qualifications from the first time.

It is possible (even acceptable) that you missed last year’s diatribe on the Chicago Bears, and winning with a dreadful offensive line.  The fact that the Bears are doing it again this year (and to their credit, their OL has been much better) is hardly a surprise.  But still, it remains rare for a team to be able to produce so many wins with so little ability to protect the passer and open up holes in the run game.  The Bears are just 7-6 this year.  The New York Giants, also struggling on the OL, are also 7-6.

The San Francisco 49ers, however, are 10-3 this year.  Their offensive line is not historically bad like the Bears was last season, nor has it been totally neglected after the Niners took TWO offensive lineman in the first round of the 2010 draft, both are starters with this current group.  But taking a weak offensive line and simply winning as much as you lose, even against a weak schedule is usually a challenge.  The 49ers have a bad offensive line.  And they clinched the NFC West on December 4th.

Typically, units like this would require a large contribution by a veteran quarterback just to mitigate some of the damage to the offense.  The 49ers have a veteran quarterback, but that player is Alex Smith, and so it wouldn’t make a ton of sense for the offense to lean on Smith to hide it’s flaws.  Smith is having a nearly identical season to last year with one major exception: he’s not turning the football over.  And good for him.  The 49ers formula for victory under Jim Harbaugh is clearly working better than anyone could have possibly expected.

The 49ers have put on a clinic on how to use the unique skills of their running backs and tight ends to produce positively on an offense that cannot protect its quarterback, doesn’t have a particularly great receiving corps (balls in critical downs and distances are frequently thrown to Ted Ginn), and has to limit the effect of the quarterback on the game week to week.

That’s a remarkable amount of limitations to overcome, and it’s why hardly anyone was high on the 49ers before the season.  Those limitations have proven limiting.  It’s far less shocking that the offensive line has failed to improve by a meaningful amount over last year than it is that the 49ers have rode pretty much the same players as last year to a 10+ win season.  The 49ers, like the Bears and Steelers before them, have been successful at leveraging what they do have: a great defense, and a particularly strong punting game, into a balanced offensive attack that can throw punches at the opposing defense even while it has to cover its own scars for four quarters.

A lot of the genius in the 49ers attack is based in it’s simplicity: you can accomplish plenty of the NFL just taking the strengths of four players: TEs Vernon Davis and Delanie Walker and RBs Frank Gore and Kendall Hunter, and creating four different sections of the playbook to have everyone involved.  Nothing the 49ers are running is particularly innovative, but the balance in the attack is remarkable.  Remember: if you call a run, you’re relying on a weak offensive line to consistently win at the point of attack.  If you call a pass, you are relying on a limited quarterback and receivers to quickly identify the defense, throw and catch the football to convert a first down.

The key is that even though the 49ers cannot win the game in the box on a down by down basis, and they can’t move anyone off the ball in power situations, and they can’t protect the quarterback in a way that allows him to sit back and read a defense, the 49ers offense can still throw multiple blocking schemes and vertical attacks at a defense.  The efficiency numbers on the 49ers suggest a couple of things: the offense fails more than it succeeds, in fact, it suggests that despite the seasons that the 49ers’ two top runners are having, only three teams are less efficient in the ground game than San Francisco this season.  Their ability to stick with the running game as a foundation of their offense even in the face of overall ineffectiveness is remarkable.

The 49ers have created a culture where despite the strength of their defense and ineffectiveness of their offense, opposing defenses are cheating on the running game, while Gore and Hunter are still breaking plenty of tackles.  Those runners play beyond the scheme.  And their continued efforts will remain critical if the 49ers are to make a long playoff run.  But by making the ground game their staple AND getting opponents to respect it as their staple, the 49ers have proven able to manage Smith despite not being able to set up and pass protect.  That they have been successful this long boggles the mind.  And while it would not be a shock at all if the 49ers can’t keep this going into the playoffs, and Smith looks really bad against a good defense, it’s just as possible that teams won’t figure out just how honest they must remain against the 49ers.

A year ago, there was no balance in their 49ers offense.  Smith was one of the players they had to manage, yet on third downs, they had no choice but to cut it lose with him and swallow their lumps.  It’s different this year.  And it’s not like they are winning because the offensive line has been better.  San Francisco’s OL is still a work-in-progress, to put it nicely.  But they are taking risks at the right times, and the decline of the OL’s ability to move people off the ball this year — in spite of the Jim Harbaugh physical “mentality” — hasn’t affected what they set out to do in Week 1.  That is why halfway through December, the 49ers are in the playoffs already.

These ten teams have something in common: (Miami, Indianapolis, Houston, Jacksonville, Oakland, Kansas City, Philadelphia, Chicago, Arizona, and St. Louis).  What they have in common is that they all lost their “established” (quoted to include Indianapolis) Week 1 starting quarterbacks for multiple weeks and or to season ending injury, and those quarterbacks were not replaced by promising rookies, but by players who were on the field to win games first and foremost.

The backups ranged in experience from rookie QB T.J. Yates, second year QB John Skelton, and third year QB Curtis Painter to A.J. Feeley in his tenth year, and Carson Palmer in his ninth season.  But how many teams actually improved when they went to their backup?  And how efficiently do NFL head coaches and coordinators handle the talent within their own roster?  We’ll go chronologically by the time that the injury to the original starter occurred.

Jacksonville Jaguars: Luke McCown replaces David Garrard prior to Week 1

The Jaguars quarterback situation has just been so horrible this year that it is hard to wonder how much of a good job David Garrard did to keep the Jaguars moving towards a common goal for the last four years.  At his worst, Garrard is a mediocre, 61% completion, 6.0 NYPA guy who has a TD to INT rate just a fraction above 1 to 1 and makes a couple head scratcher decisions every year.  That’s bad David Garrard.  Luke McCown for his career: 58% completion, 5.0 NYPA, 9 touchdowns to 14 INTs, gets sacked 10% of the time, and a couple of head scratchers every week.  So obviously, this wasn’t a move that would have been justified by the two players involved.  Obviously, McCown just served as a veteran placeholder for Blaine Gabbert, who has managed to be both the worst quarterback in the NFL this year as a rookie, and a better player than McCown has been over the course of his career.

The Jaguars with a healthy Garrard would have contended for a playoff spot this year, but that ship sailed in the preseason.

Indianapolis Colts: Curtis Painter replaces Kerry Collins in Week 3

This one could have also been done with Collins replacing Peyton Manning or even Painter replacing Manning, but what would be the point of that: to show that Peyton Manning is a better option than Peyton’s backup?  The more relevant decision is whether or not signing Kerry Collins was a better decision for the Colts than just moving forward with Painter.  The answer is: yes.  Curtis Painter is not the average backup quarterback.  He is far worse.

The whole idea of the Colts having Painter on the roster at all through these last three years is an interesting investigation into the true motives of the Colts.  There were far better options out there who weren’t rostered by NFL teams, guys who played in the UFL, Dan Orlovsky, etc.  Painter became the guy this year, eventually, because he had learned the system behind Manning.  But it’s weird that the Colts were so correct to go out and get Kerry Collins for those first three games because in fundamental football terms, there should not be better options on the street than your backup quarterback for the last two years.  This was never the case with the Colts.

Collins gave the Colts a chance to win games by limiting opportunities for the defense with sacks and interceptions.  The point production of the Colts offense improved with Painter’s knowledge, but the stats that remain most inate to quarterbacks all suggest that winning games consistently with Painter is impossible.  Give Curtis Painter credit for getting much further in football than it ever looked like he would get, but the Colts had motives beyond “win the most games” when they decided to roster him.  The depth of those motives require speculation beyond a level I am comfortable with.

As for Collins, his career may never get the respect it deserved.  Kerry Collins was a good NFL quarterback.  He was never a great NFL quarterback.  His career compares very favorably though with Jim Harbaugh’s NFL career, and frankly, Collins was likely better.

Miami Dolphins: Matt Moore replaces Chad Henne in Week 4

So here is an interesting one.  Chad Henne went 0-4 with the Dolphins to start the season.  Since turning the keys to Matt Moore, they have gone 4-5.  Maybe this isn’t a revelation, but the Dolphins are better off now than with Henne, right? Moore has inspired the Dolphins with his abilities.

Not so fast.  Here are the DVOA ratings and ranks for Dolphins QB since Tony Sparano became head coach:

• Chad Pennington 2008 -> 25.7% (5th in NFL)
• Chad Henne 2009 -> 7.9% (21st in NFL)
• Chad Henne 2010 -> 7.6% (22nd in NFL)
• Chad Henne 2011 -> 4.6% (18th in NFL)
• Matt Moore 2011 -> -2.9 (25th in NFL)

2011 Matt Moore vs. 2011 Chad Henne would require a much deeper debate than a simple cursory look at value statistics, but what the above shows is that when you compare Matt Moore as Dolphins quarterback under Tony Sparano (an era that can now be put to rest), it is undeniable that Moore is unequivocally the worst starting quarterback that Sparano had over his four years as Dolphins head man.  He just so happens to be the only of the three to be under contract for next season, so the value of the retired Pennington and the unrestricted free agent Henne have little relevance to the Dolphins going forward.

Moore has thrown for fewer adjusted net yards per attempt and gets sacked more often than Henne with more help from his teammates and offensive coaching staff, but also against significantly stronger defensive competition.  At best, Moore shows that replacing Henne shouldn’t be so difficult.  At worst, it’s not the right decision to move forward with Matt Moore.

Oakland Raiders: Carson Palmer replaces Jason Campbell in Week 7

Another one where there appears to be no clear answer.  If you apply the exact same standard for performance to both quarterbacks for the 2011 Raiders, Jason Campbell comes out far ahead of Carson Palmer.  But in fairness to Palmer, it’s perhaps fair to lump in Jason Campbell’s first season as a Raider which will both regress his value statistics a bit, and take out Campbell’s advantage heading into the season knowing he would be the Raiders quarterback.

Roughly 68% of Campbell’s snaps as a Raider came last season.  He posted a very pedestrian -2.9% DVOA, a 1.28 WPA (51.9 EPA) and a 43.8 TQBR.  However, that came against a rather difficult slate of passing defenses.  This year, Campbell’s DVOA was near the top of the league at 24.6%, a 1.02 WPA (22.4 EPA), and a much improved 58.1 TQBR.  Weighted between the two seasons, Campbell is averaging a 48.4 TQBR as a Raider, which isn’t all that far below what he accomplished in Washington.  He’s averaging 5.9% DVOA as quarterback of the Raiders, which is slightly above what he accomplished as a Washington Redskin.  He’s fumbling just a tad more since joining the Raiders, up to about 2.4% of plays from 2.0% in Washington.  And on a per play basis, his WPA and EPA over his tenure as Raiders quarterback both rank between 10th and 14th in the NFL over that timeframe.

Here are the quarterbacks in the NFL who have a higher gross WPA than Jason Campbell since he was traded to the Oakland Raiders on draft day 2010:

• Aaron Rodgers
• Tom Brady
• Drew Brees
• Tony Romo
• Eli Manning
• Matt Schaub
• Ben Roethlisberger
• Matt Ryan
• Joe Flacco
• Josh Freeman
• Philip Rivers

Campbell has been more valuable (by gross WPA) over the last two seasons than Mark Sanchez, Michael Vick, Matt Stafford, Cam Newton, and Jay Cutler.  And because of the collarbone injury that cut his season short, that’s likely underrating his impact on his team.

Carson Palmer has improved the Raiders third down efficiency since coming over from Cincinnati, but he’s also made the interception rate of the Raiders skyrocket.  Palmer has not played a slate of particularly strong pass defenses, yet the Raiders passing game’s adjusted net yards per attempt has tanked under Palmer.  Carson Palmer’s yards per completion is at a league high 14.1, but he’s not completing enough passes to justify the interceptions he is throwing.  At 65% completion rate with that 14.1 yards per completion figure, these INTs would merely be a non-issue that would work itself out with more time.  But combined with the other Raiders offensive struggles of late, the turnovers are really holding the Raiders back.

Still, Palmer’s 51.5 TQBR as a Raider is an upgrade over the combined 48.4 TQBR Campbell posted in two seasons.  Palmer’s 0.73 WPA has actually been quite good in his six career starts for Oakland.  He ranks 18th in the league this year according to WPA (Campbell ranks 14th)  Despite the bump in third down efficiency, the Raiders ability to create points through the passing game has actually declined a bit going from Campbell to Palmer.  His DVOA has tanked to -8.0% on the back of his last two performances and the high interception rate.  There is no question the Raiders’ performance has declined going from Campbell to Palmer (through Kyle Boller) at quarterback, but regressing Campbell’s numbers through his 2010 performance suggests that Palmer’s teammates with the Raiders are culpable in that decline as well.  Campbell was playing with a healthy Darren McFadden, and Palmer has yet to take a snap with McFadden in the backfield.

Campbell’s recent past has clearly been superior to Palmer’s but I think the Raiders’ realize that there is more upside with Palmer going forward.  If they cannot corral the interception rate though, they’d be better off with Campbell moving forward, upside be damned.

St. Louis Rams: A.J. Feeley replaces Sam Bradford in Week 7

A.J. Feeley is not a good pro quarterback.  It is clear that Sam Bradford is a better NFL quarterback than A.J. Feeley.  What’s more interesting about this is just how similar their numbers look.  The Rams are a worse team with Feeley under center, but how many guys in the league could have better numbers even in the inept environment the Rams play in? 40? 50?  Feeley doesn’t fall into that category of course as a sub-replacement level quarterback, but this takes us right back to the Curtis Painter argument: why do the Rams employ A.J. Feeley in the first place?

Sam Bradford has been all sorts of dreadful this season, and the Rams inability to have a backup that can at least improve the short term prospects of the organization is as much an indictment of the Rams front office as anything is.  Billy Devaney was promoted to GM of the Rams three years ago.  Their three first round picks since then: OT Jason Smith, QB Sam Bradford, DE Robert Quinn.  Offensively, the Rams are dreadful.  Their best offensive player when Devaney took over was RB Steven Jackson.  The Rams best offensive player right now is Steven Jackson, though he’s nowhere near the player he was three years ago.  His best acquisition on offense is probably inconsistent WR Brandon Lloyd, who is only there because of offensive coordinator Josh McDaniels, and his acquisition coming at a time when the Rams were already out of the playoff race.

Bradford isn’t good and has little help.  Either way, it’s hard to argue that Devaney should have his job beyond this year.

Arizona Cardinals: John Skelton replaces Kevin Kolb in Week 9

The Arizona quarterback situation is pretty bad, but they are picking between two young players who are largely unproven.  Kevin Kolb throws a better ball than John Skelton, doesn’t struggle quite as much to read coverage, and gets hurt every four weeks, typically with a head injury of some sort.  Skelton manages the pocket better and relies on Larry Fitzgerald to bail him out of trouble he gets himself into.  Skelton has a knack for leading the Cardinals back from the land of the forgotten, while Kolb has a knack for blowing huge leads to the Ravens.

Kolb is the better quarterback, but his injuries never really seem to hurt the Cardinals.  This seems to fit into the same mold as the Miami Dolphins situation.  Kevin Kolb just happens to have one of the most extreme fumbling tendencies ever seen in a quarterback.  John Skelton is kind of clueless in the pocket as well, but at least Kolb makes him look competent there.  The real issue is the Arizona OL, which protects for neither of them in the pocket.

Last year, the Cardinals quarterback situation involved some combination of Derek Anderson and Max Hall, so Kolb’s replacement level performance should be a welcome sight for Cards fans.  Only thing is, Kolb’s performance has proved, well, replaceable.  Not necessarily by Skelton.  More by the idea of John Skelton, who is 5-3 in his NFL career and came off the bench to win last week.  Skelton is a 23 year old 5th round draft pick with 8 career starts under his belt.  The Arizona Cardinals are not a good football team.  And yet, that formula works in the NFC West.  Because of this, it’s easier to suggest Kolb has been a failure to date.

Philadelphia Eagles: Vince Young replaces Mike Vick in Week 11

Vince Young was a very interesting pickup by the Eagles, because for the cost of $5 million of guaranteed salary, they picked up the player who many thought was the Tennessee Titans’ franchise quarterback just a year ago.  And here is a statistic that will be just stunning to you:

Vince Young 2011 DVOA: -12.5%
Kevin Kolb 2011 DVOA: -12.4%

For Kolb, of course, the Eagles picked up a second round pick and CB Dominique Rodgers-Cromartie.  So in light of that, it’s hard to say that Young was a bad signing: he replaced Kevin Kolb on the roster and almost directly replaced his production (although to be completely fair, Kolb was far better last year on the Eagles).  But the Eagles needed more out of their backup quarterback.  After losing Michael Vick for three weeks with broken ribs, they needed a quarterback who would keep their head above water, winning at least two out of the three games.

Young spearheaded an upset win over the New York Giants on the road, overcoming three picks to lead two critical touchdown drives.  But over the next two games in a span of five days, Young was picked five times in two season killing losses.  Young this year is averaging less than 100 passing yards per interception, which is a dreadful ratio.

For all the talk about Vick’s poor season, he’s really isn’t passing at a significantly worse rate than last year.  His running efficiency and effectiveness has taken a hit due both to constant health issues and to age.  And his interception rate is fluky high like it was in the late Atlanta days.  Vick may never make the contract that he was given a couple months ago look good, but nothing about this performance can’t be replicated next year absent the high INT rate.  Young, on the other hand?  Well, the Philly backup QB job is the best gig in all of pro football.  And so I’m not sure where his career will go from here.

Kansas City Chiefs: Tyler Palko replaces Matt Cassel in Week 11

I was stunned when I saw the numbers on Cassel vs. Palko.  Tyler Palko is not a good backup quarterback.  He’s already lost his job to Kyle Orton, who has the good fortune of being available three weeks ago.  That’s the level of confidence Palko has given the Chiefs.  But when you look at the opponents each has faced this year, and Palko has drawn the Bears, Steelers, Jets to go with the Patriots.  And while Palko looked mostly lost against New England, the fact that the Chiefs offense has appeared only a bit less lost under Palko than Cassel despite the uptick in defensive competition is eye opening.

Palko has not replaced Matt Cassel, exactly, but it’s the Chiefs passing system that defines both of them, which is why their sack rates and completion percentages are identical.  Both are ‘within the system’ passers, and always have been.  Palko is lacking physically compared to Cassel and doesn’t make consistently good decisions, but if Palko has been overwhelmed, it hasn’t been by the moment, it’s been by the competition.

I don’t think either Matt Cassel or Tyler Palko will be on the 2012 Kansas City Chiefs.

Chicago Bears: Caleb Hanie replaces Jay Cutler in Week 12

Caleb Hanie has a really nice skill set for a quarterback, but he had a really high sack rate at Colorado State, and in the pros his sack rate has been a fictitiously high 15.5%.  It’s not so much that Hanie has that limited a sense of the pocket, it’s more that the game is just moving too fast for him.  Hanie was a ball holder in high school, in college, and now in the pros, so his inability to react to information has just meant that he’s going backwards at a historic rate in the Bears offense.

Hanie’s negative plays have torpedoed the Bears offense, which is shocking specifically because Jay Cutler managed to limit those errors for the first time in his career this season.  The Bears offense under Hanie has become stripped down, but not in a good way.  The Bears throw around timeouts like they are valueless and they can’t convert the third downs they were converting earlier in the year.  Hanie is young, and would be able to grow into this role, but on some level, Mike Martz is deciding not to help him because Hanie was never Martz’ guy.  In another system, Hanie would be doing a lot better.  But this system is set for someone who is a quick thinker like Cutler, even if they make mistakes.

You could find plenty of things in Cutler’s game to complain about as well.  Cutler’s offensive production fell beyond their 2010 levels to achieve more balance in terms of sacks and interceptions.  But Cutler was seeing things a lot quicker and making better decisions than at any point in the past, and it took him 2o games to reach that level in the Mike Martz offense.  Caleb Hanie is four games into his tenure as Bears quarterback and people are already tired of him.  One thing that no one can deny: the loss of Cutler is going to define the NFC playoff picture this season.

Houston Texans: T.J. Yates replaces Matt Schaub in Week 12

For a young quarterback, T.J. Yates has made remarkably good decisions for the Houston Texans to keep the team rolling towards a deep playoff run.  He isn’t Matt Schaub in terms of talent, but he is six years younger.  If the Texans are still playing football in February, then there’s actually a chance that this could be T.J. Yates’ team for the long haul.

Yates has thrown three touchdowns in two and a half games, and he has committed three turnovers, which isn’t a great rate, though it is more than acceptable for a rookie.  Schaub, of course, was one of the best quarterbacks in all of football at the time of his injury (66.7 TQBR, 33.1 DVOA).  If Yates can’t improve on Schaub, it is only because of how good Schaub had been.

But Yates doesn’t need to improve on Schaub to become the quarterback of the Texans.  He must improve on himself from the first two starts, but two game winning drives in two career starts is a pretty good beginning to a nice long career.  Yates must put the ball in the end zone with more consistency.  If he does that, the Texans could go deeper in the playoffs than anyone expects.  And if that happens, then the Texans will have a QB decision on their hands next season.  That would be a good problem to have.

I’m going to start this discussion by listing a number of cherry-picked teams who won 6 of their first 8 games.

• The 2011 Detroit Lions
• The 2011 Cincinnati Bengals
• The 2011 New York Giants
• The 2010 Atlanta Falcons
• The 2010 New York Giants
• The 2010 Baltimore Ravens
• The 2009 New England Patriots
• The 2009 Cincinnati Bengals
• The 2009 Dallas Cowboys
• The 2009 Pittsburgh Steelers
• The 2008 Washington Redskins
• The 2008 Carolina Panthers
• The 2007 Tennessee Titans
• The 2007 Pittsburgh Steelers
• The 2007 Detroit Lions

This is not intended to be an exhaustive list of teams that started 6-2.  The 2008 Ravens and Steelers and the 2007 Giants all have 6-2 starts in the last five years that resulted in deep playoff and super bowl appearances.  They also have a couple of 6-2 starts that fizzled out before the beginning of the playoffs.  But this is 15 of the 20 teams that began exactly 6-2 in their first eight games.  Between those first 12 teams (excluding the 2011 teams), 6 of them managed to win their division.  But those 13 teams have combined for just two playoff wins.  Simply put, you can win a ton of games before Halloween, and it doesn’t say anything about the talent of your team beyond the fact that you have a significant advantage in going to the playoffs.  Teams that start 6-2 over the last five years are .500 teams in the second half of the year, as a group.

Which brings us to Jim Schwartz’ 2011 Detroit Lions, who are struggling to find a way to grab a wild card spot in a three way tie for the 5th seed with the struggling Chicago Bears and the not all that impressive Atlanta Falcons.  The Falcons, I believe, are expected to make it to 10 wins and get one of the last two playoff spots.  Whether they get the fifth or sixth seed depends on how the Bears and Lions finish, but at 10 wins, the Falcons will clinch a playoff spot one way or another because only the Lions and Bears can mathematically make it to 10 wins without clinching their division.  And the only thing that can keep the Falcons out of the playoffs at 10 wins is if the Lions win out to get the 5th seed at 11-5.

But after the Falcons get themselves into the field, a 9-7 6th seed has about a 50-50 chance of occurring mathematically.  Without chewing through a whole lot of farfetched tiebreakers or situations where the Cardinals or Seahawks win out, the obvious front runner for the last wildcard spot is whoever finishes second in the NFC North.  And presuming the Lions get to 8 wins after taking care of Minnesota this week at home, the Lions have a really good chance to make the postseason if they can avoid a huge collapse.

The Lions haven’t made the postseason since 1999, haven’t posted a winning record since 2000, and haven’t posted a winning record and made the playoffs since Barry Sanders was in his prime in 1997.  Based on those facts alone, the end of this season is huge for the Lions.  That lengthy history of defeat also will serve to protect Jim Schwartz’ job status regardless of the results they post at the end of the season.  But to flip the discussion on it’s head, the Lions need to post at least a 2-2 finish before we can even argue that their season has been successful.  A 2-2 finish gets the Lions into the postseason more than half of the time, and it’s obviously not the fault of Schwartz if he doesn’t get enough help to make the playoffs at 9-7.  In short, I believe at 9 wins, the Lions can call themselves on the right track, or at least spinning their wheels in place compared to last year, where at 8 wins, I think the Lions may have regressed over last season’s 6-10 finish from last year, when the Lions won four games to close out their season.

If they’ve regressed from 2010, I think they need to take a critical view of their entire operation.  The Lions will have reached a point where Calvin Johnson was pretty quiet over a 3-8 finish for the Detroit Lions.  They will have reached a point where a passing offense run primarily by backup QB Shaun Hill was more effective in 2010 than the passing offense spearheaded by a healthy Matthew Stafford in 2011 was.  They will have made no headway on developing a running game.  And the offensive draft picks made by the Lions in the last three drafts will have produced preciously little return on their investment, compared to the greatness of their defensive picks and signings.

There’s still time this year to make the above arguments look like nitpicking.  But if the Lions finish strong and make the above arguments look weak, the Lions will have finished second place in the NFC North, and will have made the postseason with a 10-6 record and have put together a three game winning streak heading into Week 17.  At 10-5, there’s no way the Lions season can be spun where it doesn’t look like a significant improvement over their recent past.

But the Lions are going to have to play significantly better to run off those three wins.  And based on the last seven games, the Lions may not be good enough just yet to pull off that run and a 10 win season.  Will they ever?  I think they either need to prove, 1) they are already at that level and have underachieved of late; or 2) they need to start drafting significantly better on offense, while 3) accelerating the process of winning with offensive free agents.

And I think those last two propositions put head coach Jim Schwartz in a really bad situation that reeks of having to win in 2012 with a roster that might not be as close as we thought when the Lions opened 5-0 this season.

In Week 9, the Cincinnati Bengals went in to Nashville and beat the Tennessee Titans by a single score.  It would have been fair at this point to write off the Titans entirely.  The Houston Texans pulled away to two games that same week.  The New York Jets went to 5-3.  The Bengals effectively pulled a three game lead in the wild card race from the Titans.  .500 was still a realistic possibility, and a victory for a team that I had pegged to be in the running for the first overall pick (though my QDS projection system was certainly a fan).  But playoffs? That would have been a pipe dream at that point.

The Houston Texans were ravaged by injury at the quarterback position a couple weeks later, which opened the door ever so slightly for the Titans.  The Texans haven’t lost since Week 6.  But very quietly, the Titans have won three out of their last four games, and their only loss was a non-conference loss.  And the Titans are in great shape to have a 6-2 second half.  Based on the makeup of their team, I feel like a strong finish without someone like Kenny Britt able to play, and with Chris Johnson having the first half that he had.

Statistical systems are still really low on the Titans playoff odds for two main reasons: they don’t have the tiebreaker with the Bengals, and they have to go to Houston in Week 17, a game that no system would give the Titans a high probability of winning.  The thing with the first one is this: the Bengals tiebreaker becomes irrelevant as soon as another team reaches 10 wins to tie the Bengals and Titans, something I believe the Jets are likely to do.  And keep your eye on the AFC West, where the Raiders and Broncos both play soft games to end the season in the last two weeks.  If neither drops off the face of the earth these next two weeks, the second place team in the AFC West could easily have 10 victories.  And the Bengals conference record is not all that good.

But that conference record deeply favors the Titans, whether or not they lose this week against the Saints.  A win this week makes them a legitimate candidate for 11-5.  Even if they lose at home, as is expected, the schedule hands them Indianapolis and Jacksonville, which should help them run their conference record to 7-4, considerably ahead of the contenders in the rest of the AFC.

While there is almost no way for the Titans to have a playoff spot sewn up heading into that tough week 17 game, a 9-6 Titans team should be the front runner at that point.  They should be on par (at least) with the Jets and Raiders and Bengals heading into that last game.  And the Texans, of course, may have nothing less to play for.  It is not likely that they will have just 10 wins at that point, because they have 9 wins already.  And because of the Week 1 loss to Jacksonville by the Titans, the Texans will hold any tiebreaker in the AFC South, meaning the last game of the season can only decide the division if the Titans are already within half a game of the Texans.  So while ties favor the Titans right now in the division race, they hurt them in the wild card race.

The Texans will likely be playing for a first round bye in that last weekend, so it’s unlikely that they will rest their starters against the Titans, but consider that if the Titans win that game, the two teams will likely play in the wild card round the very next week at the same location.  So I think you can expect the Texans to hedge their bets a little bit.  It makes a lot of sense to go out and win the game, but if the game is in doubt late, there is a lot the Texans shouldn’t show the Titans.  That changes the probabilities on the outcome of the game significantly.

To be fair to the Cincinnati Bengals, their opponent in Week 17 will be facing a similar dilemma, with the exception that there is a good chance that the Ravens could be playing for the division title.  But they could also have it clinched after Week 16 pending a Steelers’ loss, and merely be sitting tight and playing for playoff seeding like the Texans.

For a number of reasons, I like the Titans’ ability to prevail because of a couple gimme games on the schedule, and because their conference record is a thorn in the side to the playoff hopes of the Oakland Raiders and New York Jets.  Matt Hasselbeck is having the best season by a quarterback in this mini-race in the AFC, and the team has been fortunate to generate very little buzz so far.  And losing to the Saints doesn’t really change the equation at all.  I’m loading up on the stock of teams that are going to be alive in Week 17: the Titans, Raiders, Broncos are better bets to me than the Jets or the Bengals who could be dead in the water in Week 17 with 8 or 9 wins already in the bank.  And because of the conference record and head to head wins, I’ll take the Titans to make the playoffs above all.

There’s really not much to look forward to in tonight’s San Diego-Jacksonville Monday night thriller, but allow me to give you at least one interesting storyline: the quarterbacks.

I really liked Blaine Gabbert coming out of Missouri.  I thought that a number of teams that really could have used a pocket passer, and passed on Gabbert when maybe they would have been wiser to have taken him.  Teams, in their infinite wisdom, passed on Gabbert.

Thing is, Blaine Gabbert hasn’t been good at all this year.  This has prompted “respected” observers to make sweeping value statements, which is irresponsible at best.  Gabbert’s got one fundamental issue, which he shares with fellow recent draft picks Colt McCoy, Sam Bradford, Tim Tebow, and Joe Flacco all struggle to use the NFL pocket.  Flacco’s maturity suggests that pocket awareness can obviously be learned over time, just repeating movements in the pocket.  The idea that a player’s flaws as a rookie will manifest into larger problems later in his career are most obviously asinine.

Still, we can look at Gabbert statistically and compare him to other rookie passers who have struggled recently.  If there’s any takeaway from a list of similar rookie passers, it’s that Gabbert may have been overdrafted by Jacksonville.  David Carr is the only similar recent passer who was a first round draft pick, and he played for an expansion team.  Typically though, here’s the thing to keep in mind: Gabbert plays for maybe the only team in the league for whom he would have passed more than 250 times this year.  Switch Jake Locker and Gabbert and you may be looking at an even worse quarterback situation in Jacksonville, while Gabbert is still sitting behind Matt Hasselbeck.  Same thing if you switch Blaine Gabbert and Colin Kaepernick.

Gabbert played the worst game of his pro career last week against Houston, and he’s made some really dreadful decisions to be sure over the course of this year, but I didn’t see a whole lot of evidence on tape to suggest he cannot play at this level.  Gabbert isn’t making the Jacksonville Jaguars any better right now, but the elite defense to get Jacksonville to the playoffs next season appears to be in place, and with Maurice Jones-Drew still in his prime, the Jaguars simply need to put the offense they want around Gabbert, water, and reap the growth desired next year.  I think Jacksonville is in a much more desirable situation than the Tennessee Titans are, personally.  The Colts might have the best (young) quarterback in the division as soon as next year, but I wouldn’t be shocked to see Blaine Gabbert enjoy more early career success than Andrew Luck because the Colts might require a total rebuild on both sides of the ball.  The dreadful nature of the Jaguars offense and the upheaval of the coaching staff is giving the illusion that the Jags are further from contention than they really are.

The biggest thing for Gabbert is that he will entire 2012 with a full season of playing experience and will need to rework his pocket mechanics over the offseason.  I did not have high hopes for Gabbert as a player this year, but presuming a full offseason next year and shrewd offensive acquisitions by the Jacksonville Jaguars with an eye on rebuilding their passing game, the transition from bad rookie to competent NFL quarterback should go fairly smoothly.  And I think that people doubting the difficulty of a transition by commenting on the sustainability of such struggles will look typically foolish a year from now.