SB Nation - Jon Kitna

Folk or McBriar? A Kicking Controversy for the Cowboys

Aaron Novinger — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 23:34:16 -0000

More photos » by Bill Kostroun - AP

What the Folk, mate?

After Nick Folk missed his 42-yarder yesterday, he looked down at his holder, Mat McBriar. I think we all saw how perplexed their two faces were. At first glance, McBriar's hold didn't look to be all that bad. Apparently, it was. He said so, himself, to Coach Phillips.

Today in Coach Phillips' press conference, the first questions asked to him after his general opening statement regarded the placekicking problem.

"Was it a terribly bad hold?"

"That's what Mat said. He said he didn't get it down right," responded Phillips. He also said the laces were turned the wrong way and that Folk "hit" them.

When asked who worries him more, Phillips was not clear on whether to blame the kicker or the holder. What he said concerns him more is the confidence of the two players together in that situation. If it is indeed a confidence issue, it could be addressed by changing holders. But, as Phillips said, McBriar was the best of them when the team worked out holders during training camp.

Make the jump for more.

The other players worked out were WRs Sam Hurd, Patrick Crayton, and K David Buehler. Phillips also mentioned QB Jon Kitna, but said that he had no experience holding before, and honestly he did not sound as if Kitna could even be a holding option.

A reporter also asked whether Phillips considered giving Buehler a try at placekicker. He shot that idea down rather quickly, saying that he is not yet ready to kick in game situations.

"Why?"

"Consistency...being able to make them."

That settles that.

If anyone can fix what ails the special teams, it's coach Joe DeCamillis. This week, he will have his hands full.

Special teams coach Joe DeCamillis said the Cowboys needed to look at "the whole operation" and acknowledged a change at holder was a possibility.

"We've got limited options obviously, but we’ve worked with several guys," DeCamillis said. "We’ll just have to see as the week goes on."

DeCamillis said if the Cowboys change holders, he plans to keep that information a secret until the first time Folk attempts a kick Sunday.

"We are not going to tell you who the change will be going in," DeCamillis said. "Maybe it’s Patrick Crayton, we might want Patrick Crayton to run a fake the first play. That’s a competitive situation." DeCamillis stressed that he isn't losing faith in Folk.

In other special teams-related news, here's what Giants' PR Domenik Hixon said about how their return team beat the Cowboys' coverage unit.

"I'd been watching film of [the Cowboys' punt coverage unit] and their gunners had been doing a great job. We decided we needed to start one way and then try to head it back the other direction. If you try to go lateral for too long, you'll be in trouble, but I was able to get vertical pretty quickly against them. Seeing all those blue shirts was pretty exciting."

Another Possible Ron Turner Replacement

Lester A. Wiltfong Jr. — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 16:00:32 -0000

My plan was to have this post up on Thursday, but after another tough loss, with another bunch of questionable calls by Ron Turner, and after seeing the regression of a Pro Bowl quarterback, I had to chime in early. The Bears offense is in desperate need of a coach that can coach.

Last week I speculated the Bears could hire Charlie Weis as offensive coordinator if the Fighting Irish let him go. After losing again this weekend that possibility is gaining momentum. I honestly think Weis would be a great fit as the OC in Chicago, but it's still a far fetched idea. After the jump let's look at another possible replacement for Turner...

Since Lovie Smith isn't going anywhere and he has final say so in regards to his staff, I thought the next best place to look for a replacement for Turner is in Smith's past. Mike Martz is widely regarded as a great offensive mind (and a slightly warped mind); his "Greatest Show On Turf" Rams offenses won a Super Bowl with him as the OC and were NFC Champs in 2001 with him as the head coach and Lovie as his defensive coordinator. Martz and Smith are good friends, yes even with Martz's critical words about Cutler a while back, and don't forget it was Martz that was highly complimentary of Smith while he was pursuing a head coaching job.

Can a Mike Martz offense work in Chicago? Martz likes to use 4 and sometimes 5 wide receiver sets to spread out a defense. His takes part of his philosophy from coaching legends Sid Gillman and Don Coryell (Wiki-links provided), and is without a doubt a pass first coach. But don't forget what incredible numbers running back Marshall Faulk put up in his offense, if he has the talent he'll use it.. Martz will stretch a defense vertically as well as horizontally so a solid pass blocking line is critical. As is solid footing, something that was again called into question Sunday night.

* Allow me to go on a tangent for a sec... It's time to install Field Turf at Soldier Field. With the Tampa 2 style of defense that values speed first and foremost it's a wonder Field Turf hasn't been installed. And now with an offense that looks like it'll get away from the running mentality. Is there a better time to go artificial than the 2010 season? OK, back to Martz...

With the potential for bad weather in Chicago, I'm not sure a pass oriented offense will ever work. Definitely not on natural grass, but with the investment you just made in Jay Cutler, you have to make him the focal point of the offense. Then again, a pass happy offense worked in Buffalo to the tune of four straight AFC titles, Brett Favre made a name for himself winning games on the frozen tundra, and I'll even throw in the Patriots outstanding cold weather play with Tom Brady under center. Finding the right compliment to a passing game in Chicago for those December/January games could be done, but could they be done with Martz as OC?

A Mike Martz offense hasn't in the past asked the QB to roll or bootleg much, two things we all want to see more from Cutler, but instead is a timing offense that requires the QB to hit his spots on the field. Cutler has the arm strength and accuracy to succeed in any offense and I think Martz is smart enough to tailor some stuff to his personnel.

With so many players running around it puts the receivers in position for a lot of yards after the catch, something Devin Hester should excel at. His offenses haven't utilized the tight end much, but Greg Olsen is athletic enough to be used all over the field, and could find a place in the offense.

When Martz was OC in San Francisco for his one season in 2008 he guided their offense to their best output in five years. When in Detroit he coordinated Jon Kitna to a 4,000 yard season in 2006 even though the Lions only won 3 games, and in '07 Kitna again surpassed 4,000 yards and the Lions improved to 7 wins. Martz wasn't brought back in '08 and the Lions failed to win a game and their offensive numbers plummeted.

Martz is admittedly a little odd, a little egocentric, and sometimes hard to get a long with, but his friendship with Lovie and his familiarity with Rod Marinelli, not to mention his strong desire to get back into the NFL, and I think Mike Martz would be a good fit in Chicago.

The VRR: Cowboys Must Get Back in Saddle after Pulling off Squeaker over 'Skins

Aaron Novinger — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 04:48:58 -0000

More photos » by Tony Gutierrez - AP

Tony Romo has to take his bumps and bruises from Redskins to Raiders in just a few days.

Browse more photos »

The 7-6 victory over the rival Redskins did little to boost fans' confidence in the Cowboys' struggling offense. Running the ball 33 times - including six straight called in the first quarter - may have made the playcalling seem more "balanced", yet it produced no points.

However intriguing it is to see Felix Jones break the double-digit carry barrier for the first time in his career, or to see Marion Barber come up a yard shy from hitting the century mark, the scoreboard is still dependent on Tony Romo to pull that big, fat "0" down.

Heck, even Nick Folk failed (again) to get the team on the scoreboard prior to the end of the fourth quarter. Fortunately, the defense again refused to let that other side of the scoreboard be lit up.

Unfortunately, the Cowboys will be a bit more banged up heading into the shortened Thanksgiving week. Nothing major, but there are some bumps and bruises that must be played through as the team hosts the Raiders on Thursday. Making it through this week unscathed can be a real asset, as the team will get a few extra days to rest up before the Week 13 road game against the Giants.

More VRR after the jump.

Here's the latest on who's hurting:

QB Tony Romo - back (11/22) The quarterback injured his back in the first quarter when he was kneed in the backside while making a tackle. Romo never missed a snap against Washington, but he was limited in practice on Monday. Romo received a pain-relieving shot after the game Sunday, but told reporters he expects to play. Wade Phillips told the media Monday the quarterback was feeling better, but hinted that backup Jon Kitna might have to take some precautionary reps in practice.

TE Jason Witten - foot (11/22) Despite playing the entire game Sunday, Witten didn't practice Monday because of a foot injury. The All-Pro tight end caught two passes on the Cowboys' game-winning touchdown drive in the fourth quarter.

LB Keith Brooking - ankle (11/22) The veteran linebacker was limited in Monday's light practice with an ankle injury he suffered near the end of Sunday's win over the Redskins. Brooking said on Monday he expects to play this week.

CB Mike Jenkins - elbow/head (11/22) Jenkins got "banged up" in the Redskins game, according to head coach Wade Phillips. The cornerback was already battling the elbow injury from the Packers game but suffered the head injury late in the game when making a tackle. He did not practice with the team on Monday in the light workout.

Despite the blow to the back, Romo impressed in the end and sounds good-to-go for Thursday's game.

"That's Romo being Romo," Redskins linebacker London Fletcher said. "We had guys wrapped around him, and he still escaped. He's a tough sack."

And a tough guy. Romo bruised his back in the first quarter tackling cornerback DeAngelo Hall after he picked up a Marion Barber fumble in the red zone.

"I must have asked Tony 10 times, ‘Are you OK?'" Cowboys linebacker Keith Brooking said. "You could tell he was hurting, but he kept grinding."

Romo said he never considered leaving the game.

"I've always felt you can play as long as it's not something like a broken bone," Romo said. "With the adrenaline of the game, you can always do it. It only hurts right before the snap and right after."

The Redskins' injuries were much more severe. RB Ladell Betts and OL Chad Rinehart will be placed on IR and miss the rest of the season.

Along with Coach Phillips' aggressive blitzes, Keith Brooking credits DeMarcus Ware for his career-high four sacks.

Brooking has taken advantage of all the attention opponents pay the NFL’s reigning sacks leader in pass protection. He said his sacks often come on "hug blitzes," when he’s in man coverage against a running back and rushes when the back stays into block. When the back goes to chip Ware, that often leaves a lane for Brooking.

"The majority of my sacks, just to be dead honest with you, come from I'm just running scot-free and a lot of times the backs are sliding toward No. 94," Brooking said. "As I said yesterday, I'd do the same thing if I was in the backfield trying to block that guy. I'm just taking advantage."

Anthony Spencer was almost credited with a sack, but getting the game-winning INT proved much more rewarding.

It was Spencer's first career interception. The theft made up for a review taking away what he thought was his first sack of the season.

Late in the first half, Spencer chased Redskins quarterback Jason Campbell out of bounds for an apparent 5-yard loss. But a replay showed Campbell had released the ball just before stepping out.

"I gave the ref a little mouth about it," Spencer said. "But I'd much rather have the interception. It's a relief for the simple fact I've been around so many opportunities to make plays. It's good to see it come to fruition."

Bradie James on winning ugly:

"We have been sexy," linebacker Bradie James said. "We have been trying to be glamorous. And teams have come in and beat us. They have us ugly. What’s wrong with ugly? We won. That’s all that matters. Now we’ve got Oakland. We are concentrating on winning and getting ready for the stretch drive in December."

Coach Phillips squashed the media's attempt to get more info on the Campo-Newman argument.

If you haven't read it by now, LaRon Landry called Roy Williams "scared". Landry didn't get all Xs-andOs about it, but did imply that Williams' play was "scared".

"Certain pass concepts they had," Landry continued, by way of explaining how he knew Williams was scared. "Certain routes he ran, you could tell he didn't want any part of it."

A good area of focus on both offense and defense will be third-down conversions.

With the short week, Cowboys coach Wade Phillips might not have an opportunity to address the team's struggles with their third-down offense and defense.

"We just haven't played well enough on third downs, and we need to take a look at it."

Nick Folk knows he's in a "funk", and will stay patient.

"A little funk," Folk said Monday. "I got to work my way out of it right now."

Folk said he's not too concerned because he's hitting the ball well. On the 46-yarder he missed on Sunday, Folk said he hit it well, but it just stayed right. The last kick he missed, a 38-yarder in Green Bay the previous week, Folk said he just missed it.

"I feel good, I hit the ball really well, it stayed a little to the right," Folk said. "I dont know I got to go look at it. it felt good coming off my foot had a good week of practice."

Patrick Crayton has worn many hats in his football career. Did you know he can kick? Well, sort of.

Patrick Crayton was once the emergency kicker on his college team.

"Make that the emergency-emergency kicker," he said, smiling. "If it had ever come down to me, we probably would have gone for two."

Even then, at Northwestern Oklahoma State, Crayton had a strong leg. Once, on a bet, Crayton surprised himself.

"I made a 50-yarder," he said, again smiling. "You never know when it comes to kicking."

After waiving KR/PR Allen Rossum, the Cowboys re-signed CB Cletis Gordon to the active roster.

The Buccaneers sure like the Cowboys' practice squad players. They've already plucked rookie CB Mike Mickens off there, now they've signed QB Rudy Carpenter as well.

Matt Mosely is shopping Shanahan. If the Cowboys were to part ways with Wade Phillips after this season, he thinks Mike Shanahan could be a good fit.

I think Jones would do just about anything to win another Super Bowl but you have to question his decision to stick with Wade Phillips after a disastrous ending to the '08 season. The fact that it was partly a financial decision makes you wonder if Jones would be willing to outbid his little buddy Snyder.

There's something about Nate Davis...

Fooch — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 15:15:22 -0000

More photos » by Donna McWilliam - AP

Browse more photos »

Ok maybe that's a cheesy headline, but it's actually kind of true. Whether you're for or against 49ers QB Nate Davis (as opposed to those of us in the middle), the young man has inspired an inordinate amount of debate. I suppose this isn't surprising given the struggles of 49ers quarterbacks since the departure of Jeff Garcia.

Whatever the situation, it's not surprising some folks have latched on to Nate Davis as the guy of the future. They might not be calling him the next Montana, but they want him out there ASAP. Other folks have made it clear they think Nate Davis is nothing, is not going to make an impact in the future, and has no place on the 49ers roster going forward. Both sides have been quite vocal in their support or lack of support for Davis.

I bring all this up because of my own position, and my curiosity about the extreme folks thoughts on certain issues. When it comes to Nate Davis I am definitely excited by his potential, but I'm also not ready to bet the farm that he's the long term answer. I think the potential exists for him to be a long term answer, but I don't think the team needs to put him out there at this point in time.

What I want to do with this post is offer the various counter-arguments I see to the two extreme positions. I believe that it's way too early to make any sort of hard judgments about Nate Davis one way or the other. I can say with virtual certainty that plenty of folks will disagree on both sides of the debate, so please feel free to fire away with your opinions. And given how some of these debates have developed in the past, let's try and keep things respectful.

After the jump, I consider the two sides of the coin. There's no poll because I don't see this as a black and white issue even with numerous poll options. So whether you agree or disagree, let us know your thoughts in the comments...

Argument 1: Nate Davis should be starting now
I'd first like to clarify this argument. There are certain folks who want to see Nate Davis out on the field later in the season after the team is completely out of playoff contention. I am not talking about this argument. I think a little mop-up time is certainly not completely unreasonable. The argument I take issue with is the argument for getting Davis out there starting now, or as soon as possible.

The easy counter that seems to come up frequently is to point to Alex Smith's rookie season in 2005. Smith was in over his head and was just annihilated out there. Why do that again with Nate Davis as a rookie? Well, this is not actually the argument I would make, at least in its entirety. The 2009 San Francisco 49ers are much different from the 2005 49ers. This team is struggling, but this team also has a lot more talent on it and clearly Nate Davis would be surrounded with an immensely improved group of skill players.

The one area one might compare would be the struggles of the offensive line. And that's where my point is in countering this argument. As much as people complain about Alex Smith and Jimmy Raye, this offensive line is rather abysmal. They'll make a nice play once in a while, but more often than not it seems like Alex Smith has to run for his life. Actually, it's not even running for his life, because many times he has no time to run. Nate Davis certainly has a cannon for an arm and can get the ball deep to Crabtree, Davis and Morgan. However, when a quarterback has 1 second before the pass rush is on him, how exactly are the wide receivers supposed to run their vertical routes? If somebody can answer me that question, maybe you should send the 49ers a postcard.

Argument 2: Nate Davis is useless and has no place in the long term plans of this team
This is more of a summary of that side of the debate, than anything word-for-word. So feel free to correct me if you think I'm misconstruing the argument(s). The way I read it, some folks contend Davis is never going to be a good quarterback and the team needs to consider alternative options.

My problem with this side of the debate is the fact that Nate Davis has been in the NFL for less than one season. I realize his only game action came in the preseason, which is one reason I'm not prepared to name him the savior. At the same time, I don't see why the anti-Davis crowd can't admit that he showed some talent in the preseason (even if it was against backups). It is only preseason, but showing some skills in preseason has to be better than performing poorly in the preseason, right? Or am I wrong on that? Please feel free to rebut this presumption.

I know some folks are concerned about the learning disability, but that's another thing that I think is being overblown. Nate Davis has dyslexia, which basically involves an individual's ability to read, write and spell. It interferes with an individual's "acquisition and processing of language." The team brought Davis in before the draft and had him work with QB coach Mike Johnson. Obviously learning the playbook might be an issue, but I'm guessing the coaches figured that was something that could be overcome. Seeing as he learned the Ball State playbook, I'll agree with them on that. As far as in-game action, the only issue I could see would be in the hurry-up offense when Davis might be reading the play-chart on his forearm. However, I'd like to think the team has figured out a way to overcome that. I could be wrong, but that seems like a fairly basic issue to resolve.

Handling Nate Davis
As I said at the top, I fall somewhere in the middle of the pack when it comes to Nate Davis. I definitely see some skills that could project into the quarterback of the future. However, I also realize 1) it's only based on preseason performance, and 2) putting him in right now behind such an abysmal offensive line is not the smart move. If the team is in fact going to push him as the #1 guy next year (I'm not expecting it initially), why not get a couple big hogs on the offensive line to keep him upright? Build up that offensive line and suddenly those weapons could be absolutely fierce. Davis and Crabtree have looked good this year. Imagine how they would look with more time to develop their routes?

So how would I handle Nate Davis, long term? I'd go with some variation on the Carson Palmer/Steve McNair philosophy. Palmer was drafted in 2003 and sat out the entire year behind Jon Kitna. He never touched the field in a regular season game and then was named the starter at the beginning of the 2004 season. Steve McNair was drafted in 1995. He saw action in 4 games, starting 2 his rookie season. His second year he appeared in 9 games, starting 4. Both seasons the #1 QB was Chris Chandler, who finally gave way to McNair completely in 1997.

So, I'd say if Davis is going to see any playing time, it should be late in the game against the likes of Detroit and St. Louis, if even then. It's a bit more difficult in this situation because you don't have the aging veterans that know they're being worked out the door. You have a young guy in Alex Smith, and a still relatively young guy in Shaun Hill, who won't be quite so accommodating (even if they act nice about it). Hill's only chance as a starter going forward is if the team cuts loose Smith and wants a bridge to the QB of the future, be it Nate Davis or anybody else. But clearly Hill's not a long term answer (or even really a short term one). But the general idea, whomever you're rolling out there, is that Nate Davis could conceivably become your starting QB either midway through 2010, or at the start of 2011. I know that's too long a wait for some folks, but I think if you build up your offensive line this year it's worth the wait.

One interesting little fact about McNair, the year before McNair was drafted, Jeff Fisher took over as head coach with six games left in the season, and had the interim tag removed for the next year. Last year Mike Singletary was interim head coach for 9 games, before having the tag removed. And he also has a rookie QB. It's a bit of a stretch, but it's fun to consider those random possibilities.

Of course, if the offensive line is really the problem, and it's enough to make Alex Smith a better QB next year, that throws a monkey wrench into the plans I suppose.

Six-Pack of Hu-Dey: Sign Mike Zimmer to a long-term contract as soon as possible

Kirkendall — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 23:59:31 -0000

Introducing to the inaugural edition to the "Six-Pack of Hu-Dey ", a selection of topics that we weigh in on. We hope to have this going weekly, but we'll need your help. If you have topics that you want examined or weighed in on, email them to me. Also, some veterans may recognize the spelling is actually correct. Hu-Dey beer once existed by Hudepohl Brewing Co.

Bengals need to sign Mike Zimmer to an extension as soon as possible. This is one of those topics that we tend not to examine simply because of the obviousness of the issue. You know, like John Madden saying football is played by football players or that Cincinnatians are from Cincinnati. But here's the truth. Mike Zimmer is coaching under the final year of his two-year contract. The Bengals need to sign Zimmer to a long-term extension as the team's defensive coordinator as soon as possible.

In 2007, the final year with Chuck Bresnahan as the team's defensive coordinator, the Bengals defense ranked 27th overall and 24th scoring. The Bengals signed Mike Zimmer in the offseason and the Bengals defense has steadily improved. In his first season, the Bengals total defense improved to 12th overall and 19th scoring. And through nine games in 2009, the Bengals have the 10th best overall defense, the second-best scoring defense and the league's second-best rushing defense.

With those accolades, Zimmer will be a hot head coaching candidate in 2010. Even if no head coaching opportunities are granted Zimmer, he could find himself a rich contract as a defensive coordinator with a powerfully rich team -- say the Washington Redskins. Give him a share of ownership with the team. Whatever. Zimmer will be the biggest free agent the Bengals have to sign back this offseason.

Brandon Johnson is the best backup player on defense. After Keith Rivers suffered a broken jaw during the seventh week of the 2008 NFL season, backup Bengals linebacker Brandon Johnson became the starting weak-side outside linebacker. He finished the season with 112 tackles, second on the team. Johnson's two picks also ranked second on the team and he was one of three defensive players in 2008 to record a sack and interception in the same season.

During the offseason, the Bengals offered Johnson a $1.545 million restricted free agent tender, which he signed on August 16. He waited a long time looking for another team willing to offer the Bengals second-round compensation if they signed Johnson. No takers.

Even though his overall numbers are down this year, considering he plays in mostly pass-obvious situations, Johnson's contributions for an injured Keith Rivers the past two weeks show that Johnson's play is no let-down by any means. He replaced Rivers in the third quarter against the Ravens and recorded a team leading nine tackles and sacked Joe Flacco 1.5 times. He leads the team with eight special teams tackles.

Anytime that Johnson is forced to replace Rivers, he not only matches Rivers' production, but he plays well enough to that Rivers' absence isn't as noticeable. Which brings us to...

If no collective bargaining agreement is created, then signing Brandon Johnson long-term isn't urgent. With all of that said, Cincinnati should still work on signing Johnson to a long-term contract after this year. Most likely, he'll look for an opportunity to start. And unless something happens from now until the start of free agency, more than likely, he'll find a place. In a perfect scenario, Johnson signs, plays the backup role one more season until Dhani Jones' contract expires. Then the Bengals could place Rey Maualuga at middle linebacker and place Johnson either on the weak-side or strong-side, based on the strengths of both he and Rivers.

That is, if the new Collective Bargaining Agreement is worked out and the same free agency rules apply.

There is a certain dynamic here. If the league doesn't replace the existing Collective Bargaining Agreement before free agency in 2010, then Brandon Johnson could be forced to stay in Cincinnati. Currently, the CBA says that players only need four accrued seasons to be an unrestricted free agent. In 2010, the CBA changes, based on the final year of the deal, in which players need six years to become unrestricted free agents. Therefore, Johnson would remain a restricted free agent and could be here for at least two more years.

The Bengals shouldn't start Andre Smith this year. What I think is astronomical is that the Bengals still haven't played their first round pick, Andre Smith. The current Bengals offensive line has played so well, that Smith has become a luxury rather than a necessity. Only time I can remember this applying is when the Bengals decided to bench Carson Palmer his rookie season in favor of developing him behind Jon Kitna.

The dynamic that Paul Alexander has created with this offensive line shouldn't be shuffled anymore than it already has been. As a unit, they've only allowed 14 quarterback sacks and have been a large part of Cincinnati's rushing success, which is ranked 11th in the NFL with 1,101 yards rushing.

Cincinnati's weakest part of the schedule is coming up at Oakland, Detroit and at home against Cleveland. Conventional wisdom may suggest that the team could take the opportunity to give Smith a start, at least, to see what we have. But the best solution might be to use Smith in a Dennis Roland/Anthony Collins role, which would essentially make Smith the third offensive tackle on rushing plays. This would allow Smith to ease himself into the speed and strength of the NFL, while not disrupting the cohesiveness that the Bengals offensive line already have.

Then again, there's working him in as an eventual replacement for Bobbie Williams at right guard...

Bengals now have to beat teams that they should beat. So, I'm a little melodramatic. But I strongly believe after sweeping the Steelers and Ravens (I'll never get tired of that term), with wins against the Bears, Packers and Browns, Cincinnati losing any of the next three games could run the risk of losing everything they've earned.

The next three games on the schedule are against teams with a combined 4-22 record (Oakland, Cleveland, Detroit). Losing any of those games not only hurts the team's legitimacy, as well as their confidence, but it would bring Pittsburgh right back into the mix. It's one thing to lose against a very good football team with a winning record. But they must beat teams that they should beat. That's what winning teams do.

Successes of others helps ease the fall of Antwan Odom's injury. Since Antwan Odom was injured against the Houston Texans, the Bengals defense has recorded 11 quarterback sacks (which includes the loss to the Texans). A large part of that success has come from the combination of Jonathan Fanene and Robert Geathers, recording a combined four sacks against the two divisional powerhouses Pittsburgh and Baltimore. Geathers has recorded sacks in back-to-back games.

More surprisingly is Frostee Rucker's successes dating back to Chicago where he his playing time increased because of Odom's injury. In that three game stretch, Rucker has a quarterback sack, an interception, a deflection and three quarterback hits.

Odom clearly set the season with seven quarterback sacks in the first two games of the season. The rest of the defense continues to follow suit.

The VRR: Cowboys are Flying from One Bird Team to the Next

Aaron Novinger — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 16:54:28 -0000

More photos » by Ted S. Warren - AP

The Dallas pass rushers hope to have a field day hunting down this bird.

Browse more photos »

The Dallas Cowboys dominated the Atlanta Falcons through their offensive air power, their physical defense, and their explosive special teams play. This Sunday, a bird of a different feather flocks to Arlington.

Part two in a three-game series against NFC bird teams has the Seattle Seahawks coming to town. Having just defeated a high-flying Falcons team and trying not to look ahead to the division rival Eagles, the Cowboys must keep their six-shooters from being holstered.

Luckily, they've found some more ammunition on the defensive side of the ball to match those flashy bullets on offense.The Seattle offensive line had better watch out. The Dallas pass rush is back with a vengeance.

The Cowboys this season had no sacks in the first 10 quarters, a period in which the opponents used 96 pass plays. In the last 14 quarters, the Cowboys have 14 sacks in 137 pass plays.

That puts the defense one sack behind last year's total through six games, when the Cowboys led the NFL in the category with 59.

More VRR after the jump.

It hasn't been just fancy blitz packages that have been responsible for the resurgent pass rush. The guys up front have chipped in as well.

Atlanta's Matt Ryan had gone 142 passes without a sack before the Cowboys dropped him on consecutive plays in the first quarter of Sunday's 37-21 win. End Marcus Spears and outside linebacker DeMarcus Ware recorded those sacks, meaning Dallas overwhelmed the Falcons up front and had no need for risky blitzes. Ware, who received a six-year, $78 million extension Monday, finished with two sacks and forced a fumble that resulted in a TD-producing drive. Nose tackle Jay Ratliff also got to Ryan.

"We challenged them," Phillips said of his defensive front. "Somebody sent around a deal that said (Ryan) was unstoppable and couldn't be sacked."

In addition to fumbling, Ryan threw two interceptions en route to a 66.1 passer rating.

When the Seattle Seahawks enter Arlington, they will be doing so with a noticeable limp. Coming off their bye, though, is helpful.

The Seahawks could get cornerback Marcus Trufant and linebacker Leroy Hill back this week. They hope for some good luck this week, too.

On offense, Seattle is hurting along the offensive line. The Seahawks could be down to their fifth option at left tackle. Damion McIntosh, who was signed Oct. 12, could start against the Cowboys. Walter Jones, a nine-time Pro Bowler, hasn’t played since last Thanksgiving when he played against the Cowboys with an injured knee and gave up two sacks to DeMarcus Ware. Jones underwent microfracture surgery in December and has yet to return. Coach Jim Mora termed Jones "still iffy" on Monday.

If Sean Locklear is healthy, he would start at left tackle. But Locklear has an ankle injury that has kept him out since Week 2.

Matt Mosley lists two Cowboys atop his "rising" NFC East Stock Watch options.

1. Miles Austin, Cowboys WR: Might as well just leave him here every week. His 421 yards and four touchdowns over the past two games is a remarkable achievement. Roy Williams is the No. 1 wide receiver in name only. Austin has emerged as Tony Romo's favorite target at wide receiver. He's really good at using his strength and balance to break tackles before taking off on long touchdowns. He brings a big-play dimension that Romo really needs. If Austin and Felix Jones get going at the same time, watch out.

2. DeMarcus Ware, Cowboys WR: Let's give the man his due. He's now one of the highest-paid defenders in the game, but he won't lose his hunger. It appears that Ware is back to his unstoppable self. He picked up two more sacks in Sunday's win over the Falcons. I thought he played his best game of the season against Atlanta.

With Allen Rossum out this week, Patrick Crayton will take over as punt returner. But, who will take over the kick return duties?

Felix Jones volunteered to return kickoffs after Rossum was hurt but didn't get a chance. Both of the Falcons kicks after the first quarter were touchbacks. Miles Austin has also returned kickoffs this season, but the Cowboys would prefer that not continue with his increased role in the Cowboys offense at receiver.

So, what was up with Tashard Choice only getting one carry against Atlanta?

"Yeah, we didn't get it [to him] as much," coach Wade Phillips said regarding Choice. "It was more of the passing game, and he did make a big play in the passing game. Marion Barber came in and did a lot of our pass protection stuff, which he is the strongest in that area."

"[Atlanta] committed the safety down a whole lot ... but they were bringing him down into the box to try to keep us from running the football, and we took advantage of that."

Always a good read: Bob Sturm decodes Jason Garrett's Week 7.

Much of the Cowboys' offensive success this season has begun on first down plays.

The Cowboys rank No. 1 in first-down efficiency, averaging 7.12 yards per play. Now, some of that is because the 59-yard touchdown this week and the 60-yard score in overtime against Kansas City have come on first down. The Cowboys have had plenty of other big plays as well. But still, it means they’re being aggressive enough on first down to result in big plays.

Jim Mora Jr.'s defense isn't all that bad. But maybe, it's just had some favorable matchups.

Seattle ranks a surprising 12th in overall defense and 7th in points allowed. But those rankings may be skewed by two brutally lopsided wins against the Jaguars and Rams. It takes more than an average defense to stop the Dallas offense, the way Miles Austin and company have been balling of late. Star linebacker Lofa Tatupu is done for the year. Uh oh…

Taking over for Lofa Tatupu at MLB will be David Hawthorne, who played at TCU and whose father may again spend Sunday wearing two hats.

"My dad is a diehard Cowboy fan," the younger David Hawthorne said Monday after practice. "Last year, he had to wear one hat that had the Seahawks going forward and the Cowboys going backwards."

[snip]

Last year, the younger Hawthorne was limited to special teams duty in the Seahawks’ 34-9 loss. Sunday, he’ll be in the middle of everything, as the Seahawks defense tries to cope with the six-legged running attack that is Marion Barber (344 rushing yards), Felix Jones (8.6-yard average) and Tashard Choice (5.1-yard average) and the multi-faceted passing game that is Tony Romo distributing the ball to tight end Jason Witten (33 receptions) and wide receivers Miles Austin (23.9-yard average, five touchdown catches), Patrick Crayton (17 receptions) and Roy Williams (19.2-yard average).

Cowboys fans remember Julius Jones; while, Seahawks fans should remember Ken Hamlin and Jon Kitna.

FS Ken Hamlin was the Seahawks’ second-round draft choice in 2003 and started 52 games in four seasons before signing with the Cowboys in 2007. Backup QB Jon Kitna also played for the Seahawks (1997-2000), as well as at Central Washington University and Tacoma’s Lincoln High School.

If you haven't seen yet, Patrick Crayton won the NFC's Special Teams Player of the Week Award.

Lots of stuff to vote for this week!

Tony Romo is up for the FedEx Air Player of the Week Award. Vote here.

You can also vote for Romo's sweet "escape artist" touchdown pass to Patrick Crayton as Sprint's Can't Miss Play of Week 7. Remember, voting on this one gives you a chance to win Super Bowl XLIV tickets!

And, Pro Bowl voting has begun. Go here to vote for that.

How the West Was Won: The Importance of 3-0

Florida Danny — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 14:00:23 -0000

Fooch's Note: Don't forget to head over to our open thread for today's game.

Since the Falcons debacle, doom and gloom seems to be cropping up more and more on our threads. So I figured now would be a good time to inject a little optimism to Niners Nation (NN), and talk some of us down off the ledge...

A few weeks ago, I posted an article about the meaning of being 2-0 overall and within the NFC West. Just to remind you, here was my bottom line:

So, to sum up...By virtue of their 2-0 record both overall and within their division, the 49ers

are about 30 times more likely to win the NFC West than if they started 0-2 in the division

can expect to win about 10 games this season

are about 5 times more likely to make the playoffs than if they started 0-2 overall

That sounded pretty good at the time, especially the part about being 2-0 in the division. Obviously, as much as I'd like to be telling you what 5-0 overall means right now, the 49ers have lost 2 of their past 3 games, which puts them at a pretty-much-meaningless 3-2 overall. Therefore, today's report from Optimismland will focus solely on the meaning of being 3-0 in the division. As you'll find out, it actually means quite a bit.

After the jump, I'll show you just how meaningful it is, and even give you some optimism were the Niners to end up not winning the division...

WINNING THE WEST

Based on the 2002-2008 NFL seasons*, here's a table showing how likely a team was to win their division when they started 0-3, 1-1, or 2-1, or 3-0 in division games:

	Div Champ?
Div Record Through 3 Div Games	No	Yes
0-3	100.0%	0.0%
1-2	92.4%	7.6%
2-1	73.1%	26.9%
3-0	25.0%	*75.0%*

From this table, we can clearly see the implications of SF's 3-0 start within their division: 30 of the 40 teams since 2002 that have started 3-0 in their division have gone on to win the division. Furthermore, by virtue of their 3-0 division record, the 49ers are 10 times more likely to win the NFC West than the Seahawks, who are 1-2 in the division right now. The Cardinals are currently 1-1, so losing their next division game (Week 10 vs. SEA), will put them in the same probability boat that SEA's in right now. However, even if ARI wins that game, the 49ers would still be about 3 times more likely the Cardinals to "Win the West" (75.0% vs. 26.9%).

For the skeptics out there, who still won't come down off the ledge, I'll add two little tidbits of stat geek optimism. First, the 49ers' relevant percentage (75.0%) is 3 times higher than what you'd expect just by chance, and the likelihood of 3-0 being absolutely meaningless for predicting division championships is about 3 in 10 billion. Second, the likelihood that all percentages in the above table have occurred by chance alone - aka the last 7 years of NFL football have been unlike normal NFL football - are about 1 in 10,000,000,000,000,000, which I think translates into 100 one-trillionths of 1%. So basically, it's beyond any shadow of even the biggest doubter's doubt that (a) winning an NFL division is dependent on what a team's record is through 3 division games, and (b) the success of previous 3-0 teams is unbelievably unlikely to be a totally random phenomenon.

Finally, in case you're wondering, 10 of the 14 Super Bowl participants since 2002 started 3-0 in their division, including 4 of the 7 NFL champions. This isn't statistically meaningful because of the small sample size, but we're trying to be optimistic, so love it if it cheers you up.

LOSING THE WEST

OK, so let's say you're somehow still out on the ledge. You're saying to your pessimist self, "Hey! Ten of those 3-0 teams didn't win the division!" Well, for you guys, here's another stat: Of the 10 teams who choked away their division, 6 still made the playoffs. So that leaves only 4 teams who were unbeaten through 3 division games, and yet didn't even make the playoffs that season. Here are some details about those 4 teams:

2003 Minnesota Vikings - This team played 3 division games right out of the gate in Weeks 1-3, got to 6-0 overall, and then collapsed; losing 7 of their last 10 games - including 2 of their last 3 in the division - for a 9-7 non-playoff finish.
2006 Denver Broncos - This team played 2 of their first 3 division games against a Raiders team that ultimately finished 2-14, so you could say that they lucked into 3-0 by virtue of a creampuff division schedule early in the season. Nevertheless, the 2006 Broncos got to 7-2 overall, and then collapsed; losing 5 of their last 7 games - including all 3 remaining division games -- to finish 9-7 overall and out of the playoffs.
2007 Detroit Lions - This team was simply the mother of all chokers (a motherchoker?). Through 8 games, they were 6-2 overall and 3-0 in the NFC North; well on their way to Jon Kitna's predicted 10-6 finish. Unfortunately, they went 1-7 in their last 8 games - including an 0-3 finish within the division - and ended up 7-9 for the season.
2008 Chicago Bears - This team resembles the 2006 Broncos in that they lucked into a 3-0 division record via a scheduling quirk that gave them 2 early games against the ultimately winless Lions. Furthermore, this team was actually 2-3 outside the NFC North at the point in time that they got to 3-0 within the NFC North. Over their final 8 games, they went 4-4, but only 1-2 in their last 3 division games, with both division losses coming on the road.

This is waaaaay too small of a sample size to draw any real conclusions. However, I do notice 2 trends among these 4 teams. First, it sure seems like the NFC North has been a magnet for monumental 2nd-half collapses within the division. Last time I checked, the 49ers play in the NFC West, so we probably don't have to worry about this "Curse of the Norris."

Second, from 2004 to 2006 - and 2008 for that matter - DEN kind of perfected the magic trick of making division titles disappear. In 2004, they started 3-0 in the AFC West, but didn't end up winning the division. In 2005, they started 3-0 in the division, won the division, but then choked in the playoffs to a team I'll talk about in a second. In 2006, well, I've detailed that team above: started 3-0, but no division championship, and no playoff appearance. So, given that our favorite team isn't the "Denver 49ers," and that the Niners don't seem to have developed a penchant for meaningless 3-0 starts within their division, we probably don't have to worry about them being like the 2006 Broncos either.

I'll wrap things up with the ultimate "glass is half full" anecdote from my analysis. As I mentioned previously, 6 of the 10 teams that started 3-0 in their division made the playoffs that season as wild cards rather than division champions. One of these 6 teams stands head and shoulders above the rest. They started 3-0 in the division, but ended up narrowly missing the division crown because of a tiebreaker. The finished the season 11-5, but all that got them was a #6 seed, which pitted them in the Wild Card Round against the same team that beat won their division on tiebreakers. They beat that team, then beat one of those motherchoking DEN teams, and ended their season with a Super Bowl championship.

So even if the 49ers somehow buck the trend and fail to win the NFC West, they're still more likely than not to make the playoffs. And if they make the playoffs, they have a Super Bowl champion to model themselves after. I'd say that's about as optimistic as I can possibly envision things. Oh, and in case you still haven't figured out which 3-0, non-division-winning team they'd be OK to model themselves after, here's a hint:

Enjoy today's game against the Texans. And remember, even if the 49ers lose, they're still a 3-to-1 favorite to win the NFC West.

*Just in case you're wondering, I constantly use 2002-2008 as my data set because 2002 is when the NFL went to its current 8-division alignment. Going back farther in time than that would be like comparing apples to oranges.

Poll

As of right now, how confident are you that the 49ers will win the NFC West this season?

0-25% confident

31 votes

26-50% confident

37 votes

51-75% confident

90 votes

76-100% confident

51 votes

209 votes | Poll has closed

Keys to beating Pittsburgh: Defense has to take over this game; offense has to ditch finesse generalizations

Kirkendall — Sat, 26 Sep 2009 17:06:28 -0000

There are too many things that could come out of Sunday's game with a win to just ignore. If the Bengals win:

...there's a chance they could be tied for first place in the AFC North standings; provided that the Cleveland Browns beat the Ravens in Baltimore (what are the chances of that?). Even then, the Bengals would be the de facto leaders in the division with a better division record.
...Bengals fans will start buying up tickets -- I made the prediction earlier in the week that if the Bengals beat the Steelers this Sunday and then the Browns on the road, that Paul Brown Stadium will be sold out the rest of the season.
...it will end a seven-game losing streak when playing Pittsburgh at Paul Brown Stadium.
If the Bengals beat the Steelers this Sunday, and do it with a nastiness that the Bengals need to compete in this division, a whole new era of Bengals football could emerge.
...the Bengals will start the season 2-1 (or better) for only the sixth time since 1990 -- the other seasons being 2006 (3-0), 2005 (3-0), 2001 (2-1), 1995 (2-1), 1992 (2-1).

However, there's the other side. If the Bengals allow Pittsburgh to run them over, like they did twice last year (38-10 and 27-10), then Bengals fans will implode. Many will shy away from the explosive win that brought waves of optimism to this team after beating the heavily favored Green Bay Packers. If the Browns beat the Ravens (and who actually expects that to happen?), the Bengals could be all alone in last place, by way of division record. The Steelers will win their eighth straight game in Cincinnati, questioning the Bengals motivation (again) when defending their home turf.

Speaking in more detail, the Bengals have lost seven consecutive games when playing at home against Pittsburgh Steelers. It's been bad. The Bengals have been outscored 182-84 during that span and the margin of defeat is 14 points per game.

Date	Record *	Score
October 13, 2002	0-5	7-34
September 21, 2003	0-2	10-17
November 21, 2004	4-5	14-19
October 23, 2005	5-1	13-27
December 31, 2006	8-7	17-23
October 28, 2007	2-4	13-24
October 19, 2008	0-6	10-38

* Record before the game.

The last time the Bengals beat the Steelers in Cincinnati, Pittsburgh came into the 2001 game, 12-1. Jon Kitna threw for 411 yards passing on 68 attempts (completed 35), recording two touchdowns. Peter Warrick caught 10 passes for 109 yards. Darnay Scott caught seven passes for 113 yards. Corey Dillon rushed 21 times for 91 yards. Former Steelers quarterback Kordell Stewart threw four interceptions (two picks by Kevin Kaesviharn). Plaxico Burress and Hines Ward combined for 11 receptions for 152 yards receiving and Chris Fuamatu-Ma'afala rushed 25 times for 55 yards.

In other words, it's been a long time.

So what has to has to happen for the Bengals to win; some of them you can call The Obvious.

It's not enough to rush Big Ben. We've seen how Big Ben can evade a pass rush, keeping a play alive, even turning it into a big gain. He's big and strong. How many times have we seen him break a sure-sack only to find Santonio Holmes streaking (with clothes) down the the middle of the field? Bengals pass rushers Antwan Odom, Robert Geathers, Michael Johnson, Jonathan Fanene and maybe a defensive tackle (for a change), have make a difference. But it's not enough to just pressure Ben Roethlisberger. The pass rush has to knock him down, a lot. When they make a move for a sack, they have to drill him. The Bengals haven't recorded a sack in the past three meetings against the Steelers, and haven't had multiple sacks in a single game since September 4, 2006.

Date	Result	Sacks
October 3, 2004	L, 17-28	1
November 21, 2004	L, 14-19	7
October 23, 2005	L, 13-27	1
December 4, 2005	W, 38-31	2
September 24, 2006	W, 28-20	3
December 31, 2006	L, 17-23 (OT)	1
October 28, 2007	L, 13-24	1
December 2, 2007	L, 10-24	0
October 19, 2008	L, 10-38	0
November 20, 2008	L, 10-27	0
		16

Players that recorded sack in series since 2004: Duane Clemons (4.5), Justin Smith (4.0), Robert Geathers (2), Kevin Hardy, Landon Johnson, Madieu Williams, David Pollack, Domata Peko, Kevin Kaesviharn (0.5).

Stuff the Steelers rushing offense. Michael (Blitzburgh) at Behind the Steel Curtain was right about one thing. The Steelers do establish the rushing offense against the Bengals. And it seems like it's far too easy. Cincinnati's defense hasn't prevented the Steelers from recording over 100-yards rushing, as a team, since the Bengals 38-31 win on December 4, 2005. In the last 12 meetings, the Bengals defense prevented a rushing touchdown only once (November 21, 2004).

However, it's not just that. In the past 12 meetings, the Bengals have allowed 1,739 yards rushing and 16 touchdowns on the ground. Pittsburgh has rushed the football 40 times or more four times.

There are, however, encouraging signs to hang onto. The Bengals rush defense hasn't allowed 100-yards rushing by any team in their past three games -- 89 (Packers), 75 (Broncos), 31 (Chiefs). The Steelers rushing offense rushed for 36 yards against the Titans and 105 against the Bears to start the season. The Bengals have to keep pace by not allowing the Steelers to rush for over 100 yards (they are 2-0 in such scenarios since 2003). But, as we pointed out already, the Steelers tend to establish their rushing offense against the Bengals... a little to easily.

Date	Result	Steelers rushing	Leading rusher
9.21.03	L, 10-17	38-138-1	Amo Zereoue: 16-69
11.30.03	W, 24-20	25-85-1	Jerome Bettis: 20-62-1
10.3.04	L, 17-28	40-165-2	Duce Staley: 25-123
11.21.04	L, 14-19	40-151-0	Jerome Bettis: 29-129
10.23.05	L, 13-27	47-221-1	Willie Parker: 18-131-1
12.4.05	W, 38-31	28-95-1	Willie Parker: 15-71
9.24.06	W, 28-20	38-170-2	Willie Parker: 31-133-2
12.31.06	L, 17-23 (OT)	45-207-2	Willie Parker: 34-134-2
10.28.07	L, 13-24	33-160-1	Willie Parker: 22-126-1
12.2.07	L, 10-24	35-101-1	Willie Parker: 28-87
10.19.08	L, 10-38	27-125-2	Mewelde Moore: 20-120-2
11.20.08	L, 10-27	37-121-2	Mewelde Moore: 15-56

But what of the offense? I believe that the Bengals offense is getting closer to the potency they enjoyed during the 2005 season. Palmer recorded three touchdowns against the Packers and Benson rushed for over 100 yards. However, if you go back to the game before the win over Green Bay, the offense was far too similar to the team's worst ranked offense in 2008.

I feel that if the Bengals play mistake-free offense and convert drive-sustaining first downs, that they'll be alright. I don't expect Palmer to put up 300 yards. I don't even expect him to record three touchdowns. I don't expect Cedric Benson to record more than 100 yards rushing nor do I think any of our receivers will pick up 100 yards or more receiving. But if they sustain drives, win the time of possession and finish drives with points, the offense will do their part.

Prove we're no longer a finesse team. But I think this game will rest with the Bengals defense. If they knock Roethlisberger around and limit the Steelers rushing offense -- let's call it containing rather than eliminating -- then I think the Bengals will have their best chance at winning the football game. I know. Mistake free offense. Sacking the quarterback. Limiting the opposing rushing offense. Those are typically keys for every NFL team to win football games. But historically, when the Bengals have won, it hasn't always been that way. In previous years -- not including 2008, of course -- people have been right to generalize the Bengals as a finesse team, by simply outscoring the other offense. Defense was tasked to force a few punts; other than that, they just had to make sure the opposing offense didn't score more than the Bengals offense. Again. I know the Maddenism that exists here. But for the Bengals to win, Cincinnati's defense has to do more than that. They have to beat up the Steelers and not rely on the offense to win a shootout; because I don't think we can trust the Bengals to win that way against the Steelers.

The Bengals beat the Steelers if... I think the Bengals have as good a shot beating the defending Super Bowl champions than they've had since 2006. We're stronger on defense and the offense is coming around. Furthermore, if the Bengals offense can finally ditch the finesse term, along with the new Bengals defense passing the biggest test that they've face yet by taking over the football game, then I believe the Bengals win this football game.

Analysis: Atari Bigby Injured

Brandon — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 13:00:23 -0000

Mike McCarthy announced at his Wednesday press conference that S Atari Bigby "had a significant injury" and "we're looking at a time frame of at least four weeks." I'm starting to feel really bad for the guy. After a promissing 2007 season, last season he was injured at Detroit in week 2, and now he's hurt in the very first game.

McCarthy has announced that S Aaron Rouse will start in place of Bigby. If they have to dig deeper, my guess is that S Jarrett Bush is the top backup. I'm not sure if they really feel S Derrick Martin is a starter; they might think he's just a special teams ace.

It's hard to tell who's the better safety; Rouse or Bigby. They each started 6 games in 2008, but they each battled injuries too. Rouse had missed some preseason games with a bad hamstring, but he looked fine against Chicago last week. Here's how the pass defense did in games they started last season:

Bigby:

Game	Passing Yards Allowed
Week 1 – Minnesota	178
Week 2 – Detroit	282
Week 9 – Tennessee	180
Week 10 – Minnesota	151
Week 11 – Chicago	159
Week 12 – New Orleans	323

Rouse:

Game	Passing Yards Allowed
Week 3 – Dallas	260
Week 4 – Tampa	149
Week 6 – Seattle	83
Week 7 – Indianapolis	229
Week 16 – Chicago	142
Week 17 – Detroit	225

Bigby started in the week 2 game when QB Jon Kitna imploded in the 4th quarter, although Bigby was already knocked out by that part of the game, and the week 10 game at Minnesota when they owned QB Gus Frerotte. He was also the starter during the week 12 fiasco at New Orleans when the pass defense was shredded.

Rouse started the loss to Dallas in which most of those yards were given up on a long bomb to WR Miles Austin and a big screen pass to RB Felix Jones. QB Brian Griese and QB Charlie Frye were awful during the Tampa and Seattle games. QB Peyton Manning had 229 yards passing, but that doesn't include the 99 INT for a TD he threw to Rouse. The pass defense wasn't great in the week 17 game against the Lions.

So the pass defense was pretty good when Bigby started, except for the disaster against the Saints. It seems like the pass defense was better in the games when Rouse started, but it's not a huge difference. That would confirm what I expected; that Bigby is the weak link in the pass defense and they're a little better when Rouse starts.

But there has to be a reason the coaches have never seemed to consider taking the starting job away from Bigby. Based on the coaches determination to start Bigby ahead of anyone else, I'm sure the Packers will lose something, but not a lot, in pass coverage with him out.

They Are Who We Thought They Were

DrewsLions — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 16:12:47 -0000

More photos » by Bill Feig - AP

3 months ago: Detroit Lions running back Kevin Smith (34) reaches for the ball as New Orleans Saints linebacker Jonathan Vilma (51) defends in the first half of an NFL football in New Orleans, Sunday, Sept. 13, 2009. (AP Photo/Bill Feig)

Browse more photos »

Sean did a great job on the write-ups for the drive-by-drive summary and game recap, so I'll just give my take on the game very informally. My hope is that I can tweak the perspective on the game just a tad. It was a very disappointing outing... no bones about it. But the comments I've read since the game, not only here, but on other major Lions blog sites have been quite disheartening to say the least. Because I think we all need a dose of positivity today, I will tackle the bad first and end with the good. Yes... there was some good.

The Bad

Let's get the 800 lbs. gorilla out of the room right away. Matt Stafford's performance was not what we'd all hoped it would be. It was a very rookie-like performance against a tough opponent under tough circumstances. He forced the ball several times trying to make big plays and got caught in the act. He will quickly learn that this is not college and that he has to do a better job in his risk-taking management. I like that he's a risk taker, but he's got to know when not to take that risk. Right know, he is clearly suffering from Jon Kitna syndrome... you know, taking the burden of a weak defense's early deficit and trying to force things to happen to narrow the opponent's lead. We all know what typically happens in that situation. He just needs to settle down when the defense turns up the heat and he'll be fine.

Probably the most disheartening thing for me was the play of the defensive line. Not that I was surprised, but that my fears were now officially confirmed. I guess I secretly was hoping that this group - which was a bit of an unknown - would shock us all. But like my title states, they are who we thought they were. Avril and White were rendered helpless for most of the game - and this was without Jammal Brown. There was simply very little pressure on Brees and he had an absolute field day. Looking at Hill and Jackson, you would think that the run game would just clog at the line of scrimmage. Instead, they wore down quickly and by the fourth quarter, they were utterly gassed and the Saints were having their way with them completely. I'll have to watch the game again to see if there were any bright spots here, but I'm not expecting to see much.

I've seen many comments about the lack of blitzing, but I think Cunningham was right to dial it back. Blitzing is only effective if you are actually getting pressure on the passer. And in order to get pressure during a blitz, the line needs to get pressure too. I think that Cunningham realized that the Saints were easily picking up the extra defenders or Brees was simply seeing the blitz in the pre-snap reads and getting rid of it too quickly. Either way, the choice was to take your chances in coverage or take your chances with the blitz. Not very good options against the Saints' offense and I believe we were doomed in either case.

I thought the weakness of the offense today rested with the offensive line. They were a liability in both the passing and running game and the Saints' defensive line simply got too much push. My hat's off to Gregg Williams, who executed a very good defensive strategy against the Lions. They brought pressure effectively when they needed to and got a good rush with just their four down lineman. When you can't block four, you can't block five or six. The Lions' offensive line just wasn't good enough in this game.

I think a lot of people are blaming Kevin Smith for the lack of running game, but I don't think that was the case. Far too often, the defenders were in the backfield before Smith had the ball in his hands. Some of the playcalling was questionable as well.

Yeah, there was a lot more negatives I could dwell on, but I think those were the big hitters. I think I'd like to spend more time on the "good" section below and then finally, offer up a perspective to help take us into next week's game.

The Good

I'll start with what I think was a real positive, the return game. With respect to last year, the difference was night and day. Aaron Brown is a real find for the Lions and he is going to take a few kickoff returns to the house this year. He would have had one yesterday if not for the blazing speed of Malcolm Jenkins. It's not just the returners, though. I thought the blocking was improved as well. Again, I'll have to watch the game a second time, but for the most part I thought it was a solid outing.

You guys are going to think I'm crazy for putting this in the good section, but here goes... Matt Stafford's first half performance. Yes, I think he got a little rattled in the second half, but in the first half he at least looked the part. I thought he was confident and in control of the offense. It's simply going to take some time for this offense to click. For his debut game, the first half was admirable. My Dad, who is a casual football fan, was watching the game with me yesterday. He knew we drafted Stafford, but didn't know much beyond that - i.e. he's not an over-analytical headcase like his son and all of his son's colleagues on POD. After the first half, he said something like "Tell you what, that kid doesn't look like a rookie. He looks calm and poised, like he's been there before". And he's right. As far as rookies go, Stafford looked ready in the first half. Most likely, the pressure and picks rattled him in the second, but did we really expect it not to? Schwartz and Linehan will calm him down and watch the tape with him. So listen to me very carefully... HE WILL BE FINE. It was his first outing and we knew it would be rough... and it was. Let's see how he rebounds next week and the week after that. That's the real test for him.

Don't make me bring historical first games for first overall draft picks into the mix here. Aikman, Manning... they've been exhausted, but they are relevant. Heck, look at Jay Cutler's game last night... even vets can struggle and throw three picks... in a single half!

For the most part, I thought that the tackling was much improved over last year. The underlying problem is that the Saints' offense was picking up too many initial yards in the air (versus a lot of YAC) and with the run, they were getting past our front four far too easily. I thought that the linebackers and even the secondary tackled very well. I couldn't think of more than a few plays where missed tackling was a huge issue. I think this will be a strength when we play against teams with a lesser offense.

The forced turnovers were another element to yesterday's game that hopefully signals a positive step forward in this team's progression. Although we couldn't always translate the opportunities to points, the fact is that there were opportunities there to be had. This is a big difference from last year, where those opportunities were completely absent from games. It's all about being a little better than you were the day before. So in this sense, they were.

The coaching factor is also something that is night and day from last year. I feel immeasurably more confident having Jim Schwartz walking the sidelines versus Rod Marinelli. He looks in control and acts like a head coach. He had the passion to get after the refs when they blew a call (and there were MANY) and yet even when it was obvious we were overmatched, he remained even-keeled and poised. I didn't get to see his presser after the game, but I expect that same poised guy to come out and handle losses as well as he will handle wins. This team is in good hands. It's simply a matter of talent with this team right now and hopefully he can get more out of less and get us a few wins this year.

Look guys, I know this was a depressing opener, but did we REALLY expect it to go any differently? That's why I titled this article They Are Who We Thought They Were. Yeah, we all talked a little trash in the end and some of us were intoxicated from a week of crapulous kool-aid binging, but we all knew that this was likely to be the outcome. In the end, I thought the Lions were better in many aspects, but the questions we had about this team going in were simply confirmed. We already had a pretty strong inkling that the pass rush and defensive line was a liability, so why are we so surprised when it was established? We knew that our coverage was going to be a liability as well, so again... why the shock and awe when Brees torched us? Same with the offensive line and with our rookie quarterback. They are who we thought they were.

I am not trying to belittle anyone's discouragement with the Lions' poor performance yesterday. In actuality, I come offering solace and hope as I try to make sense of perplexing expectations. This team IS better. It's tough to see it after yesterday's loss, but they are. They will not go 0-16, yet I highly doubt they will go 10-6. Not every week will our defense be playing against Drew Brees. Not every week will our offense be down 14-0 in the first quarter. The circumstances for each game will vary. Some match-ups will play to our strengths (which we undeniably have) and some, like yesterday, will not.

The underlying problem is that this team lacks talent... a fact we all knew coming into the season. But there is now a solid group of base players to build from and each week we will progress. I do not believe for one second that Jim Schwartz will allow this team to regress... not for a single second. This team has stronger leadership from both the coaching staff and the players in comparison to last year and they will not buckle under mounting pressure to win. Our rookie quarterback is headstrong, mentally tough and more determined than any rookie that I've ever seen. He will not wither from the defensive pressure or the media fodder or even the oh-so-fickle Detroit fans. He will learn and get better each game and in time become the leader of a very potent offense. But guys... it's gonna take time. And by that, I mean more than a few preseason games and one... count it... one regular season start. We as a fanbase, must be patient and allow this team to learn and bond. Remember, we've turned over nearly two-thirds of our team and our roster is still very weak in comparison to most teams. We are building, not contending.

The thought I want to end on is that there IS progress. There were glimpses yesterday. Had we been playing a different opponent, maybe those glimpses would have been more pronounced, but I saw them. There is still a great hope for me in this base group of players, especially the young ones like Delmas, Stafford and Pettigrew that tells me in time, we will no longer be the laughing stock of the NFL. But when you've been down for so long, it's sometimes hard to see the positive in losses. It was an old familiar feeling... losing, I mean. It's tough not to say, "Same old Lions". But we just can't. We cannot simply throw in the towel as fans after one game and start the same old cynical chants of the Millen era. For me, I look to next week as a perfect opportunity. I will be at the Vikings game with my son (his first Lions game). What an ideal scenario for redemption... the home opener against a division rival and an old familiar foe in Brett Favre. Maybe they win, maybe not. For me, I just want to see an exciting game and a little progress. I just think that's where our expectations need to be.