NFL Mjd Vs Mds

The gentlemen at ProFootballTalk.com, a site I like, are pretty staunch believers that Shawne Merriman shouldn't be going to the Pro Bowl. And I understand the argument... he's a cheater, he damaged the game's reputation, etc. I get that. But on the issue of Pro Bowl eligibility, I just can't agree.

Postseason honors and awards are a recognition of what happened on the football field. These games have always been awards for the best players; not the best players who also happen to be sterling beacons of fair play and solid citizenship. At no point has any league ever made any kind of a moral requirement for a player winning an MVP or being made an All-Pro. It's based on what happens on the football, it's based on the best NFL players.

And Shawne Merriman is that. He's an NFL player. If the NFL had come down and said, "No, your character is not worthy of our game, and we want you out," then fine. If he's out, he's out.

But he's not out. Whatever moral or ethical test that the NFL insists their players pass, Merriman has passed. Any player who's on the field has passed that test. Merriman completed the punishment that the league assigned, and that makes his play on the field as legitimate and recognition-worthy as anyone else's. If he's good enough to represent the NFL on regular season Sundays, then why wouldn't he be good enough to represent them in a later Sunday in Hawai'i? If he's in, he's in.

There's just no place to draw that line. If you're banning bad seeds, there are a lot of guys in the league with pretty bad track records. If you're banning cheaters, there are a lot of guys out there who intentionally break rules all the time. If you're banning guys who hurt the integrity and image of the game, there's Terrell Owens. If you're banning guys with lame celebration dances, then ... well, actually, make Shawne Merriman the first guy you ban.

But the only qualifications for Pro Bowl eligibility should be your status as an NFL player and your performance on the field. Merriman solid in both aspects.

See also: MDS's Counterpoint: Keep Shawne Merriman home.

A response to MJD's Point: Shawne Merriman Belongs in the Pro Bowl

When he's on the field, Shawne Merriman has probably been the league's best defensive player this year. He's a rare combination of speed, strength and size. Athletes who weigh 270 pounds just shouldn't be able to do the things he does.

And that's the point. Now that he's tested positive for steroids, we have no way of knowing whether Merriman is a Pro Bowl-quality player when abiding by the rules. He might be or he might not be. Until Merriman can show that he's a Pro Bowl player without steroids, there's no reason he should be honored as one of the best in the game.

There's also the little matter of the lack of productivity thanks to his suspension. Merriman missed four games, and Pro Bowl voting concluded after the 13th game of the season. Anyone who voted for Merriman was voting not just for a cheater but also for a player who missed more than 30 percent of his team's games.

I don't want to see every good player in the NFL under a cloud of suspicion, the way so many Major League Baseball players are. And I don't think his steroid suspension needs to be a black mark on the rest of Merriman's career. If he has a long and honorable career and never runs afoul of the league's performance-enhancing substance rules again, I could see voting for him for the Pro Football Hall of Fame some day. But the Pro Bowl is an honor for one season, and this season Merriman wasn't playing cleanly. He shouldn't be rewarded for it.

(Also see: MJD's Point: Devin Hester is in the Conversation)

I love Devin Hester. I don't know if I've ever seen a better return man. But look at his numbers. He has 10 kickoff returns and 36 punt returns all season. Add in that spectacular return of a missed field goal, and he's touched the ball a whopping 47 times all year. He's done about as much for the Bears as any player could do touching the ball 47 times, but he's not the league's best rookie.

Compare Hester's contributions to a rookie like Joseph Addai, who already has 182 rushing attempts and 31 catches. Or Vince Young, who has turned the Titans from a bunch of scrubs into a team no one wants to play down the stretch. Or even Marques Colston, who was looking like the best receiver in football before an injury slowed him down last month.

I'll also mention the one negative associated with Hester: He has already fumbled four times, and if he keeps up that pace of fumbling once every 12 touches, he's going to hurt the Bears badly at some point in the playoffs. But I don't want this to be a slam against Hester. He's as valuable as a kick returner can be -- but no kick returner can be as valuable as Addai, Young or Colston.

(Also see: MDS's Point: Hester Is Great, But He's Not Rookie of the Year)

Devin Hester's got six touchdowns. There are rookies who have more (Marques Colston and Reggie Bush have 7, Joseph Addai has 8, and Maurice Jones-Drew an astounding 12), but Hester's touchdowns are different. When he scores, he's doing the work of an entire offensive drive, and he's changing the game.

For example, let's say the Saints start with a 1st and 10 from their own 20, and they put together an 80-yard drive that ends in a touchdown. And let's say Drew Brees throws for 50 of those 80 yards, Dulymus McAllister runs for 15, and Reggie Bush runs for 15, the final five of which put the ball in the endzone. That's six points.

Now, let's say Devin Hester fields a punt at his own 20, and he just hauls ass for 80 yards. That's also six points, and he did it all by himself. He did the work of 11 men on an entire offensive drive there. Return yards don't get the same attention as yards from scrimmage, and maybe rightfully so. But yards are yards, field position is field position, and touchdowns are touchdowns.

And to take it away from a statistical level ... Devin Hester changes games. He changes momentum, he sucks the life from the other team, he brings crowds alive ... a football game before a Devin Hester touchdown is a different football game afterwards.

You can make a pretty good case that Chicago wouldn't have won recent games against Minnesota or St. Louis without Hester. Take away the points he's responsible for, and those are very close games, and when you add in the unmeasurables like momentum and attitude ... at the very least, he was the Bears MVP on those nights, if not directly responsible for the wins. A lot of rookies have had good games, but other than Vince Young, not a lot can say they're directly responsible for two wins.

Now, at the same time ... I've gotta confess that I wouldn't vote for Devin Hester as rookie of the year. And if Vince Young wins a couple more games, the whole conversation is going to be moot. But when the votes are cast, Hester's earned the right to have his name brought up in the discussion.

I know that football's a team game and everything, but sometimes one guy can lose a game for you, and Sunday night against the Chargers, Ben Roethlisberger tried his hardest. His poor play killed drives, killed momentum, and killed the Steelers chances. Most other areas of the team were pretty solid. It was the big, goofy, goateed mess under center that cost them.

Roethlisberger's been saying that the Steelers aren't as far away as they might appear to be, and while I generally make it a policy to believe very little that comes out of Ben Roethlisberger's mouth, I think he's right about that.

And he should know, because It's him that's off. He's not getting out of the pocket and making the plays he used to, he's throws aren't as sharp as they used to be, he's not in the same physical condition he was in last year, and he's made some terrible decisions with the football.

If the Steelers had beaten the Chargers, they'd be sitting at 2-2, no one would be worried about them, and we wouldn't be having this conversation. And they really weren't that far away from making it a very close game against the Chargers. They ran the ball pretty well, and their defense held pretty strong for a good portion of the game. Admittedly, Dick LeBeau is still trying to find a way to stop Phil Rivers, but Ben Roethlisberger put the defense in some bad spots to begin with.

To me, it all comes back to Roethlisberger. Willie Parker can still run the ball. Ike Taylor's still a great cover guy. Joey Porter still probably lacks basic reading comprehension skills, but is still effectively using his insanity to make plays defensively. The one guy who isn't performing at the level he did last year is Large Benjamin.

The Steelers schedule is about to lighten upconsiderably, and if sometime over the next two weeks, Roethlisberger can get back to where he was, the Steelers still have plenty of time to make a run at ten wins and get themselves into the playoff conversation.

See MDS's Counterpoint: Sorry, Steelers, You're Not Making the Playoffs

A response to MJD's Point: It's Not Over for the Steelers

Ben Roethlisberger will get better. On that we can agree. He really couldn't get much worse. But the Steelers have other problems beyond just Roethlisberger, who quite clearly should have stayed on the sidelines a little longer after his preseason appendectomy. The Steelers' offensive line has had trouble keeping Roethlisberger upright, which is the last thing you want when your quarterback is hurting.

The special teams are below average in every respect. I think the Redskins grossly overpaid for Antwaan Randle El, but that doesn't change the fact that the Steelers miss him in their return game.

Although the defense is still solid, even there the Steelers don't look as good as they did in January. Troy Polamalu, perhaps because of his ailing shoulder, doesn't seem to be making the plays he usually does. Joey Porter, slowed by a hamstring injury, doesn't play nearly as well as he talks. (Hell, Lawrence Taylor didn't play as well as Joey Porter talks, but Porter isn't even close to backing up his words with his actions on the field.)

The schedule does get easier. They still have two games against the Browns, they get to visit the Raiders, and they get to host the Bucs. But even if they can go 8-4 the rest of the way, a 9-7 record just isn't going to do it in a conference that has the Colts, Patriots, Ravens, Bengals, Jaguars, Chargers, Broncos and Chiefs in the playoff hunt.

I should acknowledge that my track record of predicting how the Steelers will play is far from perfect. Before this season I said they'd repeat as champions. Last year I said in December that they'd never win three straight road playoff games. So I've been wrong before. But not this time: The Steelers will watch the playoffs on TV.

In response to Michael David Smith's point that the Colts are the best team in the league...

I don't know that I'll ever believe that a team in the NFL could be considered the best team in the NFL when their defense is as average as the Colts'. They've played just one game this year where they've held an opponent to under 21 points, and two of the teams that scored that much on them are the Texans and Jets, neither of which was thought to be anything special offensively. They're not a complete enough team for me. Chicago is.

Let's start on the offensive side of the ball, just to give the Colts a chance to compete. Not, obviously, I'm not saying the Bears are as good as the Colts, but the difference isn't as big as you might think. It's not because I think the Colts offense has some great flaw, rather, I believe that Rex Grossman is playing, and will continue to play, at a very high level. He doesn't have a famous dad or a fake mustache in a Sprint commercial, but Grossman does have is a very high quarterback rating, higher than even Manning's.

And again, I know that Rex Grossman is not Peyton Manning. But through four games, Rex Grossman is proving that he at least deserves to be in the conversation when you're talking about the most effective quarterbacks in the league.

All across the board, Chicago's and Indianapolis's offensive statistics are quite similar. The Colts are 20th in the league in rushing yards per game, the Bears are 21st. The Colts are 4th in the league in passing yards per game, the Bears are 5th. The Colts are 5th in total offense, the Bears are 8th. Star value and conventional wisdom might indicate that the Colts have a much better offense, but that just isn't the way things have played out on the field.

The Colts have started 4-0, but it hasn't always been pretty. The Giants dropped some potential interceptions of Peyton Manning that could have changed the game in the opener. The Jaguars ran the ball down the Colts' throats. The Jets had a lead late in the fourth quarter. Only one of the four games was a dominating win, and that was against the Houston Texans.

But take a look at that offense. Remember how losing Edgerrin James was supposed to be a devastating blow to the Indianapolis Colts? It hasn't turned out that way. James is averaging three yards a carry, while the 4-0 Colts' offense looks just fine without him, with Dominic Rhodes and Joseph Addai combining for 159 rushing yards and a touchdown apiece against the Jets. And with Manning throwing to Marvin Harrison and Reggie Wayne, there's not a secondary in the league I'd bet on to shut down the passing game.

The defense is a concern, but Tony Dungy is one of the league's best defensive coaches. The Colts were missing three of their top five defensive backs on Sunday, and pass-rush specialist Dwight Freeney has been bothered by nagging injuries and held without a sack. When the defense is healthy again, I expect Dungy to have them playing at a playoff-caliber level.

This looks like a league without any teams we could describe as great, but after four weeks, the Colts are the closest thing to it.

See MJD's Counterpoint...

A response to MJD's Point.

If a run-first philosophy is conservative, just call me Ted Kennedy. For the Eagles to get back to the Super Bowl, they don't need to establish the run. They need to pass, pass and pass some more.

Yes, the Eagles blew it in the second half and overtime against the Giants, and yes, teams with big leads usually hold onto those leads by running the ball. But the real turning point of the Eagles' loss came on exactly the kind of play call that is supposed to be the safe way to nurse a lead: On a second-and-6 with 4:22 left in the fourth quarter, Brian Westbrook took a handoff and went behind the right tackle. Westbrook fumbled, giving the Giants the ball and, ultimately, the game.

That doesn't mean the Eagles need to get better at running the ball -- the season has already started, and unless you think the Chiefs are suddenly going to agree to trade Larry Johnson, it's too late for that. It means that the Eagles need to stop trying. Sure, they'll run often enough to keep opposing defenses from going out in the dime package on every play, but the Eagles are designed as a passing team, and a passing team is what they should be.

In crunch time, I want my best player in control. On the Eagles, the best player is Donovan McNabb. Do the right thing, Andy Reid. Turn to the passing game and don't look back.

How does a team rack up 451 yards of total offense, sack the opposing quarterback eight times, hold a 17-point lead in the second half, and still lose?

Answers: 1) Hire Art Shell at halftime. Or 2) Be unable to kill the clock with a running game.

A lot of the blame for the Eagles loss is going to Andy Reid's "conservative" strategy in the second half, but I am of the opinion that when you lead by 17 points with less than 30 minutes to play, conservative is the right call. What's a coach supposed to do in that situation, start airing it out like it's a Hawaii vs. Utah State game at midnight on ESPN2?

That's how you put game away. You grind out the tough yards, you protect the football, and you keep the clock moving.

And I think that's what the Eagles tried to do against the Giants, they just failed. Donovan McNabb threw the ball 31 times in the first half, and 14 in the second. But the Giants were able to bottle up the Eagles ground attack in the second half, and that's probably the biggest underlying reason for their comeback.

You can look at those numbers and say, "They did better in the first half when they threw the ball 31 times, and they were bad in the second half when they threw the ball 14 times." And that's true. But there's a reason Andy Reid moved to a more ground-oriented attack, and any NFL coach would prefer to do the same thing: to kill the clock and keep the ball away from the Giants.

There is something to be said for playing to your strengths, and clearly, throwing the ball is more of a strength for the Eagles than running the ball. But I would suggest that if you really want to be an elite NFL team, running the ball, or at least being able to run the ball, is a necessity. When the Eagles tried to do it, they failed to convert on two 4th-and-1s, they coughed up a crucial fumble, and they couldn't keep the clock moving when they had to.

The answer isn't that the Eagles should have run the ball more against the Giants. The answer is that they need to become better at running the football, period.

See MDS's counterpoint.