NFL FanHouse

Between the Lines: Who's Allowing the Most Sacks?

JJ Cooper — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 10:00:00 EST

Filed under: 49ers, Chicago Bears, Packers, Panthers, Steelers, NFL Analysis

Every week FanHouse looks at some aspect of NFL line play for the weekly Between The Lines feature.

Because of bye weeks, most teams are halfway through their season even as we're getting ready to watch Week 10. The halfway point seems like as good a time as any to roll out complete sacks allowed stats.

These stats were culled by watching each and every sack that has occurred in the NFL this season (with the exception of a couple of minutes of a Redskins-Chiefs game that was lost because of a broadcasting problem). In going back and watching every sack, I timed the time from the snap to the initial hit on the quarterback (then rewound it and timed it a couple of more times to confirm the time) and tried to assign blame to the person responsible for giving up the sack.

I'll be the first to admit that I'm sure a couple of these sacks are assigned to the wrong person. Assigning blame for sacks isn't as cut and dried as adding up rushing yardage--sometimes a blitzer may appear to be one lineman's man, but because of the blitz pickup rules on that particular play, he was actually someone else's assignment. But I do believe those are few and far between, and on most sacks it's pretty easy to figure out who's to blame--he's the offensive lineman shaking his head after the play after his man beat him head-to-head.

If you take the time to add all these sacks up, you'll notice that this list is missing more than 120 sacks. Those are sacks that were blamed on the play call or the quarterback. If a team keeps five in to block against a seven-man blitz and one of those unblocked blitzers hits the quarterback, blame the QB for not getting the ball out or blame the offensive coordinator, but there was nothing the line could do. Also, when a quarterback takes off to try to run after dropping back to pass, it's still charged as a sack if he doesn't get back to the line of scrimmage, but an offensive tackle did his job if he walled off his man, only to see him turn around and run the other way to tackle the QB at the line of scrimmage -- that goes on the quarterback. The same can be said for the rare times that a quarterback just runs out of bounds instead of throwing the ball away (well it's rare for everyone but Seattle's Seneca Wallace, who seems to make it a habit of his).

As you will notice and probably not be surprised to see, a pair of Packers rank among the league's worst. It's worth noting that Green Bay's Allen Barbre lost his starting right tackle job while Daryn Colledge's experiment as the team's fill-in left tackle has also been quickly ended and he was moved inside to the less demanding guard position. San Francisco's Adam Snyder has also lost his job at right tackle although like Colledge he was moved inside to guard.

I've included the median time of each sack to demonstrate that all sacks are not created equal. With seven sacks allowed, Duane Brown seems to be having a bad year for the Texans, but Matt Schaub is not doing him any favors. On five of Brown's sacks, Schaub had 3.5 seconds or more to throw, but his tendency to hold the ball meant that Brown's man eventually got the sack. With Peyton Manning at quarterback, Brown would likely have two sacks allowed at most this year. Carolina's Jordan Gross, on the other hand, wins the award for the big-name offensive lineman having the most problems in pass protection.

See List of Sacks Allowed Sorted by Team

SACKS ALLOWED BY PLAYER
Player	Team	Sacks Allowed	Median Time	Player	Team	Sacks Allowed	Median Time
Adam Snyder	SF	7	2.6	Jerome Harrison	CLE	1.5	1.9
Allen Barbre	GB	7	2.6	Jamaal Jackson	PHI	1.5	2.1
Jordan Gross	CAR	7	2.6	Jason Brown	STL	1.5	2.3
Daryn Colledge	GB	7	2.9	Louis Vasquez	SD	1.5	2.3
Duane Brown	HOU	7	3.6	Geoff Hangartner	BUF	1.5	2.4
Stephon Heyer	WAS	6.5	2.8	Anthony Fasano	MIA	1.5	2.5
Levi Brown	ARI	6	2.8	Chris Snee	NYG	1.5	2.8
T.J. Lang	GB	5	2.4	Logan Mankins	NE	1.5	2.9
Mike Gandy	ARI	5	2.5	D'Brikishaw Ferguson	NYJ	1.5	3.1
Sean Ryan	KC	5	2.6	Dan Koppen	NE	1.5	3.1
Jeff Backus	DET	4.5	2.5	Donald Lee	GB	1.5	3.1
Jermon Bushrod	NO	4.5	2.6	Matt Birk	BAL	1.5	3.3
Mario Henderson	OAK	4.5	2.7	Jon Jansen	DET	1.5	3.9
Jeromey Clary	SD	4.5	2.8	Heath Miller	PIT	1.5	4.2
Max Starks	PIT	4.5	3.7	Chester Pitts	HOU	1	1.6
Julius Jones	SEA	4	2	Cadillac Williams	TB	1	1.8
Lousaka Polite	MIA	4	2.2	Cedric Benson	CIN	1	1.9
Erik Pears	OAK	4	2.4	Kenneth Darby	STL	1	1.9
Jason Peters	PHI	4	2.4	Knowshown Moreno	DEN	1	1.9
Eugene Monroe	JAX	4	2.5	Damion McIntosh	SEA	1	2
Demetrius Bell	BUF	4	2.55	Hank Fraley	CLE	1	2
Marcus McNeil	SD	4	2.55	Chester Taylor	MIN	1	2.1
Wade Smith	KC	4	2.65	Brandon Manumaleuna	SD	1	2.2
Chris Chester	BAL	4	2.7	D'Anthony Batiste	WAS	1	2.2
Gosder Cherilus	DET	4	2.85	Felix Jones	DAL	1	2.2
Alan Faneca	NYJ	4	2.9	Joseph Addai	IND	1	2.2
Jake Long	MIA	4	3	Ladell Betts	WAS	1	2.2
Joe Thomas	CLE	4	3	Reggie Bush	NO	1	2.2
Eben Britton	JAX	4	3.05	Zach Miller	OAK	1	2.2
Flozell Adams	DAL	4	3.05	Jahri Evans	NO	1	2.3
Sam Baker	ATL	4	3.25	Keydrick Vincent	CAR	1	2.3
Bryant McKinnie	MIN	4	3.5	Ryan Lilja	IND	1	2.3
Chris Kemoeatu	PIT	3.5	2.7	Stephen Peterman	DET	1	2.3
Floyd Womack	CLE	3.5	2.7	Steve Vallos	SEA	1	2.3
John St. Clair	CLE	3.5	2.7	Vernon Davis	SF	1	2.3
Jonathan Scott	BUF	3.5	2.7	Corell Buckhalter	DEN	1	2.4
Branden Albert	KC	3.5	2.8	Jeremy Zuttah	TB	1	2.4
Chris Williams	CHI	3.5	3.6	John Gilmore	TB	1	2.4
Chilo Rachal	SF	3	2.1	Kyle Kozier	DAL	1	2.4
Michael Oher	BAL	3	2.2	Marc Colombo	DAL	1	2.4
Anthony Collins	CIN	3	2.3	Mark Mason	WAS	1	2.4
Larry Johnson	KC	3	2.3	Matt Forte	CHI	1	2.4
Kyle Williams	CLE	3	2.5	Matt Stinchcomb	NO	1	2.4
Mike Goff	KC	3	2.5	Scott Mruckowski	SD	1	2.4
Tra Thomas	JAX	3	2.5	Casey Rabach	WAS	1	2.5
Harvey Dahl	ATL	3	2.6	Jeff Faine	TB	1	2.5
Joe Staley	SF	3	2.6	Adam Goldberg	STL	1	2.6
Michael Roos	TEN	3	2.6	Brent Celek	PHI	1	2.6
Mike Sellers	WAS	3	2.6	Damien Woody	NYJ	1	2.6
Tony Pashos	SF	3	2.6	Matt Spaeth	PIT	1	2.6
Jeremy Trueblood	TB	3	2.7	Max Jean-Gilles	PHI	1	2.6
Cooper Carlisle	OAK	3	2.8	Tyson Clabo	ATL	1	2.6
Eric Wood	BUF	3	2.9	Aaron Brown	DET	1	2.7
Jeff Otah	CAR	3	2.9	Brandyn Dombroski	SD	1	2.7
Ray Willis	SEA	3	2.9	Chris Johnson	TEN	1	2.7
Donald Penn	TB	3	3.1	Eric Winston	HOU	1	2.7
Stacy Andrews	PHI	3	3.1	Kevin Smith	DET	1	2.7
Travelle Wharton	CAR	3	3.1	Steve Hutchinson	MIN	1	2.7
Kareem McKenzie	NYG	3	3.3	Tim Hightower	ARI	1	2.7
Rashard Mendenhall	PIT	3	3.3	Ben Grubbs	BAL	1	2.8
Phil Loadholt	MIN	3	3.5	David Bass	SF	1	2.8
Andrew Whitworth	CIN	3	3.6	King Dunlap	PHI	1	2.8
Winston Justice	PHI	3	3.7	Max Unger	SEA	1	2.8
Richie Incognito	STL	2.5	2.3	Michael Bush	OAK	1	2.8
Mike Williams	WAS	2.5	2.5	Omar Gaither	BAL	1	2.8
Kirk Chambers	BUF	2.5	2.55	Roberto Garza	CHI	1	2.8
Justin Hartwig	PIT	2.5	2.7	Russ Hochstein	DEN	1	2.8
Chad Clifton	GB	2.5	3	Andy Alleman	KC	1	2.9
Jon Stinchcomb	NO	2.5	3.2	Maurice Williams	JAX	1	2.9
Ben Hamilton	DEN	2.5	3.4	Brandon Pettigrew	DET	1	3
Chris Samuels	WAS	2.5	3.4	Chad Rinehart	WAS	1	3
Ryan Harris	DEN	2.4	3.35	Jacob Bell	STL	1	3
Jason Smith	STL	2	2.05	Justin Smiley	MIA	1	3
Vernon Carey	MIA	2	2.15	Jake O'Connell	KC	1	3.1
Leonard Davis	DAL	2	2.3	Jason Witten	DAL	1	3.1
Brandon Frye	SEA	2	2.35	Kevin Walter	HOU	1	3.1
Chris Kuper	DEN	2	2.35	LeSean McCoy	PHI	1	3.1
Steven Jackson	STL	2	2.35	Reggie Wells	ARI	1	3.1
Naufahu Tahi	MIN	2	2.5	Cornell Green	OAK	1	3.2
Chris Morris	OAK	2	2.55	Jordan Black	JAX	1	3.2
Fred Davis	WAS	2	2.55	Korey Hall	GB	1	3.2
Nick Kaczur	NE	2	2.55	Kyle Cook	CIN	1	3.2
John Sullivan	MIN	2	2.6	Todd Herremans	PHI	1	3.2
Ryan O'Callagahan	KC	2	2.6	Vince Manuwai	JAX	1	3.2
Charlie Johnson	IND	2	2.65	Brad Butler	BUF	1	3.3
Ronnie Brown	MIA	2	2.65	Carl Nicks	NO	1	3.3
Mike Pollack	IND	2	2.65	Deuce Lutui	ARI	1	3.3
Scott Wells	GB	2	2.65	Gary Russell	OAK	1	3.3
David Diehl	NYG	2	2.7	Tony Stewart	OAK	1	3.3
Frank Gore	SF	2	2.75	Kris Dielman	SD	1	3.4
Donald Thomas	MIA	2	2.8	Ray Rice	BAL	1	3.5
Greg Olsen	CHI	2	2.9	Ryan Kalil	CAR	1	3.5
Jason Spitz	GB	2	2.95	Sebastian Vollmer	NE	1	3.7
Fred Jackson	BUF	2	3	Casey Wiegmann	DEN	1	3.8
Jared Gaither	BAL	2	3	Jeff Saturday	IND	1	3.8
Rich Seubert	NYG	2	3	Chris Spencer	SEA	1	3.9
Ryan Clady	DEN	2	3	Mike Brisiel	HOU	1	4
Alex Barron	STL	2	3.05	Tony Richardson	NYJ	1	4
Stephen Neal	NE	2	3.05	Ryan Grant	GB	1	4.2
Trai Essex	PIT	2	3.05	Derek Fine	BUF	0.5	2.3
Deon Anderson	DAL	2	3.15	Derrick Dockery	WAS	0.5	2.3
Todd Light	NE	2	3.15	Greg Jones	JAX	0.5	2.6
Dennis Roland	CIN	2	3.2	Maurice Jones-Drew	JAX	0.5	2.6
Dominic Raiola	DET	2	3.25	Justin Fargas	OAK	0.5	2.7
Will Heller	DET	2	3.25	Shaun O'Hara	NYG	0.5	2.7
Eric Heitmann	SF	2	3.3	Brian Waters	KC	0.5	3
Garrett Wolfe	CHI	2	3.3	Jake Scott	TEN	0.5	3
Daniel Loper	DET	2	3.4	LaDainian Tomlinson	SD	0.5	3
Khalif Barnes	OAK	2	3.45	Nick Cole	PHI	0.5	3.3
Davin Joseph	TB	2	3.6	Frank Omiyale	CHI	0.5	3.6
Orlando Pace	CHI	2	3.6	Nick Hardwick	SD	0.5	3.8
Kasey Studdard	HOU	2	4

Between the Lines: Who's Allowing the Most Sacks? originally appeared on NFL FanHouse on Fri, 13 Nov 2009 10:00:00 EST . Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Zebra Report: Know Your Surroundings

Matt Snyder — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 10:00:00 EST

Filed under: Chargers, Colts, Atlanta Falcons, Panthers, Raiders, Redskins, Saints, Texans, NFL Referees

Zebra Report is FanHouse's analysis of actual NFL rules and how they are to be applied ... because most fans think they could do a better job than the NFL officials, yet definitely could not. Click here for an introduction as to how we do things.

This past week of NFL play was relatively quiet in terms of complaints about the officiating. Note I said "relatively," because there are always a bevy of complaints -- many warranted and many ridiculously unwarranted. We know that. Regardless, we're still here to sift through some of the more intriguing rules-type interpretations, so let's dive in.

- A loyal reader (Dave B.) submitted this question on a play that caused a bit of a scrap on the Falcons' sideline:

"I was hoping you might take a look at the late hit by LaRon Landry in the 'Skins-Falcons game. I've tried to look at it, and it seems that Matt Ryan hadn't stepped out of bounds yet (his body was over the line, but neither of his feet had touched) when Landry made contact with him. If that were true, isn't Ryan still technically in bounds? The hit did seem pretty unnecessary, but wasn't against the rules if Ryan's foot hadn't touched yet."

Watch the play in this highlight package, it starts at the 1:09 mark.

This is one of the tougher judgment calls officials have to make, especially in full-speed and in a split-second. Here is the portion of the rule (12-2-8, p. 82) which applies here.

"(Unnecessary roughness includes ... ) contacting a runner out of bounds. Defensive players must make an effort to avoid contact. Players on defense are responsible for knowing when a runner has crossed the boundary line, except in doubtful cases where he might step on a boundary line and continue parallel with it."

This is a part of the rules constantly taught to lower-level officials in clinics by the NFL guys. At every level, it is the responsibility of the defender to avoid contact on a player entering the end zone is clearly going out of bounds. In the case of Ryan, there was no danger of him cutting back into the field of play. When someone is slowing down and clearly looking straight out of bounds and heading that way, the defenders need to avoid contact. He's not cutting back and staying in bounds, so just let him run out. It harms no one.

This call becomes extremely tough when a player isn't necessarily showing signs of wanting to go out and may still make a cut up-field. It's all discretionary, but the rules of football are very clear in that the burden is on the defensive player to know his surroundings.

In this specific case, I don't even think there's a question that Ryan was clearly headed straight out of bounds -- and was already there -- by the time Landry hit him.

- In the Colts-Texans game, Ryan Moats is tackled just shy of the end zone and the ball comes loose. Upon further review the officials rule that it was a fumble and the ball was never out of bounds. You can watch the play by clicking here and watching at the 35-second mark and beyond. There are several elements here that must be reviewed.

First of all, was it a fumble? It does appear the ball is coming loose before a knee hits the ground. Was it conclusive? I think so, but others may have a different opinion.

Secondly, was any player out of bounds when touching the ball -- even if he doesn't have possession? If so, the ball is dead. You might think the ball was definitely touching Moats when he was out of bounds, but was he legally out of bounds? I point you to the definition of being out of bounds (rule 3-21, p. 11), where it says that someone -- or the ball -- is out of bounds when touching "anything other than a player, an official or a pylon on or outside the boundary line." That means that, since Moats was laying on top of Antoine Bethea, he was not out of bounds when he crossed the sideline.

From the Texans' point of view, they don't seem to be questioning the part about Moats being out (though that's the main complaint of fans). They have offered up that they believe Bethea -- who was definitely on the ground and out of bounds -- touched the ball. There are some still photos and an argument that Bethea touched the ball when he was out of bounds contained in this linked article. We've included a poll to let us know what you think, and feel free to drop comments. This was a very close one.

- As I've said before, you can't exactly trust announcers to know the rules. We can add former-Super-Bowl-champion-coaches-turned-announcers to that list. During the fourth quarter, the Saints punted the ball near their own end zone. A member of the Saints' coverage team accidentally ran into the end zone, but got himself back out before touching the ball. It was downed on the one. "He can't be the first one to touch that!" Brian Billick screamed. Um, Brian, yes he can. It's not the sideline. Here is the only stipulation involving coverage team contact with the goal line on a punt (rule 9-2-2, p. 63):

Item 2: If a player of the kicking team touches the goal line with any part of his body while touching the ball, the ball is dead, and the result of the play is a touchback.

He doesn't even have to get both feet established, as play-by-play announcer Thom Brennaman tried to tell Billick. Just don't be touching the goal line with anything.

- Reader James G. submitted this question. In the Raiders-Chargers Week 8 game, there was a questionable play followed by a false start. After the five-yard penalty was marked off, there ended up being a challenge. The simple answer to the question, "how can you challenge the previous play after a false start" is precisely that a false start doesn't constitute an actual play. It's not a play. So there still hasn't been a play run since the questionable (and still reviewable) play. Of course, James didn't make it easy on me. He asked a legitimate question as a follow up. What if the play is reversed and the spot is changed? Would the false start still be assessed? I searched through the entire enforcement and instant replay sections of the rulebook and found absolutely nothing resembling direction on this question. I have no idea. I would guess that the penalty is not assessed and is simply ignored because they altered the previous result, but that's just an educated guess. Well, as educated as you consider me, at least.

- Vikings fans/Steelers haters, there was a tripping call on Arizona in the Bears-Cardinals game for the exact same action as was called on Minnesota in Pittsburgh a few weeks back. Seriously, it was like the lineman was trying to emulate Jeff Dugan by whipping both legs back up at the leaping defender. What happened there? Was this game fixed, too? Are the Bears "stealers," too?

- Finally, in that same game, Tommie Harris was ejected for punching a Cardinals lineman in the first quarter. This was an absolute no-brainer. Good decision by Ed Hochuli.

Got a rules-related question? Whether it's elementary, high school or NFL, email TZR and he'll see what he can do.

Zebra Report: Know Your Surroundings originally appeared on NFL FanHouse on Wed, 11 Nov 2009 10:00:00 EST . Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Pocket Presence: Russell Still Struggling

Bruce Ciskie — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 14:00:00 EST

Filed under: Browns, Buccaneers, Panthers, Raiders, Titans, NFL Quarterbacks

It's often said that a team with two quarterbacks really doesn't have any. With that spirit in mind, FanHouse will keep you updated weekly on NFL teams facing potential quarterback controversies.

Stubbornness sometimes pays off. The Carolina Panthers found this out on Sunday.

One week after giving up on the run way too easily in a loss to Buffalo, the Panthers mercilessly pounded Arizona's run defense into the ground, and their reward was an easy win. Of course, it doesn't mean Jake Delhomme has magically turned his season around. It just means the Panthers have found a way to hide him, while keeping him on the field. Delhomme is off our magical list for now, but other shaky starters aren't so lucky.

Oakland Raiders: JaMarcus Russell and Bruce Gradkowski

Surely, Russell is hampered by a complete lack of playmakers. Darrius Heyward-Bey has been a disaster so far, and outside of tight end Zach Miller, Russell simply doesn't have anyone to throw to.

However, he's earned every bit of that 48.3 quarterback rating, a rating that is barely above the 39.6 that you'd get by throwing every pass into the ground. Russell makes bad decisions, surpassed only by the simply awful throws he's capable of.

Whomever is coaching the Raiders next year is likely to have Russell around, only that coach will be facing the challenge of getting him off all the bad habits he's picked up, along with restoring what has to be a non-existent confidence.

Russell is only 24, so there's no point in giving up. However, there's also no point in leaving him out there to further destroy the mental part of his game.

Status update: Very warm

Cleveland Browns: Derek Anderson and Brady Quinn

Surely, the Browns weren't planning on firing a general manager before his first season was over. That's exactly what happened this week, though, as the team's embarrassing slide towards another high draft pick continued with a 30-6 whomping by the Bears in Chicago.

First-year coach Eric Mangini should be shown the door once this disastrous season ends. So far, the only thing he's done to try to inject life into his team was switch quarterbacks. To the coach's chagrin, Anderson looks to be a worse fit for this offense than Quinn was. That's not saying much, because no quarterback could do much of anything positive with this team.

Now what do you do? The season is a lost cause, and Quinn won't approach his contractual incentives if he takes over now. Anderson obviously isn't the answer, so now it's simply a question of whether Quinn can show enough to justify keeping him around for the next regime.

Status update: Very warm

Tampa Bay Buccaneers: Josh Freeman and Josh Johnson
Tennessee Titans: Vince Young and Kerry Collins
Carolina Panthers: Jake Delhomme and Matt Moore

Freeman gets his first start this weekend against Green Bay. It's not common for coaches to go back to a veteran once they start the rookie, so one has to assume this is Freeman's gig.

Young actually looked pretty good in helping the Titans get their first win. No way they go back to Collins now, even if the team starts losing again. Young's athleticism is perfect for this offense -- if he can stay healthy and throw with any kind of accuracy.

As for Delhomme, as mentioned above, the Panthers rode the running game, but Delhomme did throw for 90 yards in just seven completions, and Steve Smith got his first touchdown of the year. Odds are he sticks around.

Pocket Presence: Russell Still Struggling originally appeared on NFL FanHouse on Wed, 04 Nov 2009 14:00:00 EST . Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Panthers Sticking With Jake Delhomme

Chris Burke — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 17:00:00 EST

Filed under: Panthers, NFL Quarterbacks

Blame it on the $42.5 million contract extension he signed in the offseason, but whatever the reason, Jake Delhomme just can't get himself benched.

Delhomme threw three interceptions in Carolina's 20-9 home loss to Buffalo last season, upping his season turnover total to 15 -- which is more than 29 teams through seven weeks of the NFL season. But with 2-4 Carolina on the verge of becoming a team playing for draft position, Panthers coach John Fox announced Wednesday that Delhomme would start at Arizona this week.

"I think he gives us the best chance to win," Fox said. "There's no question we've struggled in that area. Going through and looking at some of our mishaps, I don't think it's one guy, and I still think he gives us the best chance to win."

Given Delhomme's performance thus far in 2009, that doesn't say much for backup QBs Matt Moore and A.J. Feeley -- Moore was thought to have a shot at the starting gig this week.

Instead, Delhomme gets the nod again, ironically against Arizona, which started Delhomme's issues in the first places. After turning the ball over just 15 times in 16 regular-season starts last season, Delhomme coughed it up six times (five interceptions, one fumble) in a playoff loss to the Cardinals.

Despite being given that hefty contract extension in April, he's seemingly never regained his confidence. Perhaps redeeming himself against Arizona would set Delhomme back on the right path.

"I don't know that a lot of it is based on who our opponent is this week," said Fox of his decision to stick with Delhomme. "We're not the same team as we were a year ago, we've got a lot of different players. ... We're not the same team and neither is Arizona."

Carolina appeared to be on the verge of turning its season around after back-to-back wins over Washington and Tampa Bay nearly erased an 0-3 start. But Delhomme was horrendous in the loss to Buffalo -- throwing the ball 44 times while the Panthers' dynamic running back duo of DeAngelo Williams and Jonathan Stewart saw just 23 combined carries.

The presence of Williams and Stewart, plus an offensive line that's been at least serviceable, makes Delhomme's bumbling even harder to figure. Carolina ranks No. 8 in the NFL in both yards per rush (4.4) and yards rushing per game (128.7).

"You're not going to win every play, and that's something you understand in this league," Fox said. "Getting confidence helps when you get good results, and we're going to fight though it, get out of the funk and get good results."

Fox will have to forgive, well, everyone if they're a little skeptical.

Panthers Sticking With Jake Delhomme originally appeared on NFL FanHouse on Wed, 28 Oct 2009 17:00:00 EST . Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Pocket Presence: Teams Putting Quarterbacks in Position to Fail

Bruce Ciskie — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 16:00:00 EST

Filed under: 49ers, Browns, Buccaneers, Panthers, Raiders, Titans, NFL Quarterbacks

It's often said that a team with two quarterbacks really doesn't have any. With that spirit in mind, FanHouse will keep you updated weekly on NFL teams facing potential quarterback controversies.

Some teams are entirely too stubborn. Not only will they leave bad quarterbacks in to take mental and physical beatings, but they'll insist on running offensive plays that don't seem to take the team's strengths into account, oftentimes leaning way too much on a struggling quarterback to make plays. As the Carolina Panthers and Cleveland Browns (among others) have now learned, this is a recipe for disaster.

More: Carolina Sticking With Delhomme | Freeman in for Tampa

Carolina Panthers: Jake Delhomme and Matt Moore

Delhomme has done a lot for the Carolina franchise, and loyalty is rarely a bad thing, even in a cutthroat industry like the NFL.

However, can anyone explain why Moore hasn't gotten a shot at saving the Panthers' season yet?

If Moore is so terrible that he can't be trusted to start, why is he serving as the primary backup to an aging veteran who melted down severely in the playoffs last year and has shown little life so far this season? It just doesn't make sense.

In Delhomme's defense, neither did Sunday's play-calling.

The Panthers ran for over 200 yards in a win over Tampa Bay. The response Sunday? Delhomme put the ball in the air 44 times, while star running backs DeAngelo Williams and Jonathan Stewart combined for 23 carries. That makes sense, right?

Didn't think so.

Status update: White hot

Cleveland Browns: Derek Anderson and Brady Quinn

Anderson was simply awful again Sunday, this time in a 31-3 home loss to Green Bay. While he failed to hit half his passes, throw for 100 yards, or lead his team into the end zone, it wasn't all his fault. For some reason, the Browns decided to use the wildcat with Josh Cribbs exactly once against Green Bay.

Maybe the Packers showed a wonderful ability to stop the wildcat on that one play. Perhaps there is something about the Dom Capers' 3-4 defense that lends itself to stopping that gimmick, because the Vikings didn't use it in their matchup with the Packers on Oct. 5. However, Cribbs is the Browns' best offensive player right now. It's not even close.

Why isn't the ball in his hands more often?

As long as the team continues this failing strategy, it probably doesn't matter who the quarterback is, though it would likely behoove Cleveland to go back to Quinn. Anderson threw 11 passes at either Mohamed Massaquoi or Brian Robiskie on Sunday. They combined for one catch.

Status update: Very warm

San Francisco 49ers: Alex Smith and Shaun Hill

While head coach Mike Singletary might have made up his mind quickly, the smart money is on this not being the last change he has to make.

Yes, Smith played well in a second-half stint Sunday at Houston. However, it's typically harder on guys like him when they have to actually start the game. Smith was the backup to Hill for a reason, and now he has to prove that he can do things he failed to do in training camp or preseason games, or in any of his other starts for the 49ers.

Smith is getting thrown right into the fire, as San Francisco has a Sunday date with unbeaten Indianapolis.

Status update: Very warm

Oakland Raiders: JaMarcus Russell and Bruce Gradkowski

Russell has flat-out stunk all season. He's been terrible. Finally, head coach Tom Cable had enough. While replacing Russell with Gradkowski didn't do the Raiders any good on the scoreboard, it may be a message to Russell that he has to put in the time and make the commitment to get better now, or he will run out of chances.

No, Oakland isn't a playoff contender. But they have to do something to put a jolt into Russell. Otherwise, they'll never know for sure what they have in him.

Status update: Very warm

Tennessee Titans: Kerry Collins and Vince Young

Titans owner Bud Adams has come out and said he wants Young to be the starter. Meanwhile, it appears that Collins is going to keep the job for at least another week (though head coach Jeff Fisher hasn't really said).

While it's hard to blame everything that has gone wrong on Collins, he hasn't played well. Not only that, but the Titans owe it to themselves to give Young a shot at some point. It's not much different than Russell, really. They have to find out what they have.

Plus, the owner wants it to happen, and he's the owner. It's likely that Young starts sooner rather than later.

Status update: Very warm

Tampa Bay Buccaneers: Josh Freeman and Josh Johnson

It was made official Wednesday that Freeman will get the nod out of Tampa's bye week. The Johnson experiment was an unmitigated disaster, as Tampa Bay did virtually nothing with him leading the way.

Now, it's up to Freeman, the rookie first-rounder out of Kansas State. While it's hard to predict what the result of this experiment will be, it probably doesn't matter in the end. Once you put the rookie out there, you typically don't switch back unless he gets hurt.

Status update: Lukewarm

Pocket Presence: Teams Putting Quarterbacks in Position to Fail originally appeared on NFL FanHouse on Wed, 28 Oct 2009 16:00:00 EST . Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Coach Killers, Week 7: Jake Delhomme

Tom Mantzouranis — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 13:16:00 EST

Filed under: Panthers, NFL Quarterbacks

Every week, NFL FanHouse hits the lowlights from Sunday's action, looking at those players who did the most to move their head coaches that much closer to returning to the Bed and Breakfast business.

In light of their recent faux pas, it'd be easy to make JaMarcus Russell or Larry Johnson the Coach Killer of the week. After getting benched in a loss to the Jets, Russell explained that he wasn't Oakland's problem, proving that he's as aware of himself as he is of a blitz. Or how to line up for the first play of the game, despite practicing it all week.

Larry Johnson, well, we know that story by now. Johnson added insult to ineffectiveness in the wake of the Chiefs' 37-7 loss to the Chargers, making life harder on a first-year coach trying to retain any shred of credibility with a terrible roster.

But Russell is not an NFL-capable player, and Johnson is a headcase. They haven't fooled us into believing otherwise. Jake Delhomme, however, had us all believing he was an NFL quarterback. A gambler, sure, but one who came through more often than not. ... D'oh.

More Coverage: Carolina Sticking With Delhomme as Starter

Delhomme's travails of late have been well-documented, and this isn't the first week of the season he's qualified for this award. But his three-interception performance against the Bills was particularly egregious.

You can argue that he deserves the benefit of the doubt against a Bills defense that is 10th in the league in passing and ranks first in interceptions, with 13 (10 in six games before Delhomme came along), despite missing key starters. Knowing that information, you can also argue (as my esteemed colleague Matt Snyder did) that the fail whale should belong to the Panthers' coaching staff, who decided to counter a stellar pass defense by, um, passing 44 times and running a talented young combo of backs a total of 23 times.

And yes, maybe that strategy is questionable. But in the specific instances of Delhomme's three interceptions, they weren't terrible play calls. Everything was in position for the quarterback to deliver completions, yet Delhomme's inexplicable inaccuracy led to turnovers that caused major point swings in a game that still ended with less than a two-score differential.

Interception No. 1 -- 1st-and-10, Carolina 13. A play-action fake that gives Delhomme great protection for routes to develop (approximately 2.1 seconds from the end of the play fake, when Delhomme first looks downfield, and the throw). He attempts to hit tight end Gary Barnidge, who's about 30 yards downfield without a defender close enough to him to make a play on the ball. Instead, Delhomme overthrows him by about six yards, right into the arms of Jairus Byrd, who barely has to do anything. A 37-yard return and two plays later, Marshawn Lynch gave the Bills a 7-0 lead. Who knows if the Panthers would have scored on that drive, but a completed pass to the open Barnidge would have gone a long way towards putting them in field goal range. Still, let's just call that pick a seven-point swing.

Interception No. 2 -- 2nd-and-6, Carolina 39. Down 7-2 late in the third quarter, another play-action fake gives Delhomme lots of time in the pocket (approximately 1.9 seconds) to make the throw. He tries to hit Steve Smith for another big gain, but the ball bounces off the outstretched hand of Steve Smith and right to Byrd. While quarterbacks typically get leeway for a tipped interception, this one was on Delhomme, too. Smith was running a cross pattern with nothing but wide open field in front of him. Instead of leading Smith into an easy reception and at least another 10 yards after the catch, Delhomme throws directly above the diminutive Smith, who had to betray the momentum of his run, leap and stretch to attempt to get his hands on it. The inaccurate throw (with, again, plenty of time to set up) led to the tip, not a problem with Smith's hands. A 30-yard return and six plays later, the Bills take a 14-2 lead on a Lee Evans reception. Like Interception No. 1, a completed pass would have put the Panthers close to field goal range, but let's be generous and call this one a seven-point swing as well.

Interception No. 3 -- 2nd-and-14, Buffalo 49. Down 20-9 with 1:30 left in the fourth, it's desperation time. A lot has to be done to erase the deficit, but a quick touchdown makes it plausible. Once again, Delhomme has a ton of time (approximately 3.1 seconds on a shotgun snap), and again tries to hit Barnidge about 40 yards downfield. This time, however, Barnidge is covered by two men on a go route. It's a questionable choice for any quarterback to force that ball, but an elite few can drop it into such a tight spot. Delhomme isn't one of them. He overthrows Barnidge by two or three yards, into the waiting hands of George Wilson, who promptly drops at the Bills' 6-yard line where his offense could kneel three times and walk off the field victorious. In that situation you take your chances, but Delhomme had two much safer options on the left sideline in single coverage, where each receiver could have picked up a sizable amount of yards and stopped the clock to boot, instead of going for a home run on one throw to the middle of the field. It's too far of a reach to guess whether the Panthers would have eventually scored had Delhomme made one of those throws, especially given the irrelevancy of a field goal in those circumstances, so we'll give Delhomme the benefit of the doubt and call this a zero-point swing.

Still, that's a 14-point swing based on three Delhomme throws, enough to have made the difference in a potential Panthers' win. The Panthers' only problem isn't Delhomme, they're underachieving elsewhere, but does anyone doubt that with a better quarterback this team would at least have a shot at .500?

Instead, John Fox has reportedly already intimated that he expects to be fired after the year, and talk is already swirling of Bill Cowher swooping in and taking control of the franchise. It's partially the fault of the Panthers front office for committing to Delhomme with a five-year, $42.5 million extention despite his foreboding clunker in the playoffs against the Cardinals last year. But in the end it was on Delhomme to prove that he could pass the test in rebounding from that performance. He passed it, all right, directly into the waiting hands of Cold Reality.

Coach Killers, Week 7: Jake Delhomme originally appeared on NFL FanHouse on Wed, 28 Oct 2009 13:16:00 EST . Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Between the Lines: Which Tackles Are Starring and Which Are Struggling?

JJ Cooper — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 14:45:00 EST

Filed under: Broncos, Chiefs, Atlanta Falcons, Packers, Panthers, Steelers, NFL Analysis

As we have done since the FanHouse began, I'll be taking a look every week at some aspect of line play. You can read more features in the series here. Check back every Thursday for a new Between The Lines.

If you're a reasonably diligent football fan, it's pretty easy to follow which running backs, quarterbacks and wide receivers are living up to their reputations -- you just check the stats. It's not as easy, but you can also get a pretty good sense of which pass rushers are having big years, by checking out the sacks.

But when it comes to evaluating offensive linemen, it's a lot tougher to know which blockers are starring and which ones are living off reputation.

After logging 401 sacks this season, it's time to start diving into the numbers to try to get a better sense of who has stood out this year.

Thanks the Sunday Ticket Shortcuts and the NFL's easily available gamebooks, I've watched and re-watched all but two of the 401 sacks that have taken place this season in the NFL (thanks to CBS' technical screw-up five minutes of last week's Redskins game was lost forever).

I've logged how many rushers were sent on the play, who gave up the sack, the down and distance, how long the quarterback held the ball before the sack and who was responsible for the sack. Thankfully on most sacks the culprit is pretty clear. Usually it's a sacker simply lining up and beating the man trying to block him. On other plays it can get more difficult, as a blitzer will come free or a stunt will lead to a missed hand-off from one offensive lineman to another. In those cases, I've assigned the block to the blocker most likely to have been responsible for the rusher. If two blockers were both responsible, I assigned them each half a sack. And if the quarterback ran his way into a sack or a play call left no blocker with a chance to block the sacker, that sack was logged as the responsibility of the quarterback or play call (roughly 80 of the 401 sacks fall into that category).

So lets take a look at which offensive tackles have given up the most sacks. Eventually we'll list every offensive linemen, but considering how many centers and guards are still without a sack allowed, that can wait a couple of weeks. But if you're an offensive tackle who has played every week without giving up a sack, you're putting together a pretty impressive season.

OFFENSIVE TACKLES SACKS ALLOWED
Allen Barbre	Green Bay	6
Levi Brown	Arizona	5
Jordan Gross	Carolina	5
Daryn Colledge	Green Bay	5
Jeff Backus	Detroit	4
Erik Pears	Oakland	4
Duane Brown	Houston	4
Demetrius Bell	Buffalo	4
Winston Justice	Philadelphia	3.5
Stephen Heyer	Washington	3.5
Jeromey Clary	San Diego	3.5
Max Starks	Pittsburgh	3.5
John St. Clair	Cleveland	3.5
Ray Willis	Seattle	3
Phil Loadholt	Minnesota	3
Michael Roos	Tennessee	3
Marcus McNeill	San Diego	3
Mike Gandy	Arizona	3
Kyle Williams	Seattle	3
Jake Long	Miami	3
Flozell Adams	Dallas	3
Eben Britton	Jacksonville	3
Donald Penn	Tampa Bay	3
Andrew Whitworth	Cincinnati	3
Anthony Collins	Cincinnati	3
Ryan Harris	Denver	2.5
Michael Oher	Baltimore	2.5
Chris Samuel	Washington	2.5
Brandon Albert	Kansas City	2.5
Vernon Carey	Miami	2
Ryan Clady	Denver	2
Jeremy Trueblood	Tampa Bay	2
Joe Thomas	Cleveland	2
Jeff Otah	Carolina	2
Jermon Bushrod	New Orleans	2
Chris Williams	Chicago	2
Chad Clifton	Green Bay	2
Bryant McKinnie	Minnesota	2
Brandon Frye	Seattle	2
Mario Henderson	Oakland	1.5
D'Brickshaw Ferguson	N.Y. Jets	1.5
Tra Thomas	Jacksonville	1
Sam Baker	Atlanta	1
Ryan O'Callaghan	Kansas City	1
Nick Kaczur	New England	1
Kareem McKenzie	N.Y. Giants	1
Jason Peters	Philadelphia	1
Jon Jansen	Detroit	1
Jared Gaither	Baltimore	1
Eric Winston	Houston	1
Damien Woody	N.Y. Jets	1
David Diehl	N.Y. Giants	1
Cornell Green	Oakland	1
Brad Butler	Buffalo	1
Adam Goldberg	St. Louis	1
Alex Barron	St. Louis	1
Orlando Pace	Chicago	0.5
Jonathan Scott	Buffalo	0.5
Willie Colon	Pittsburgh	0
Tyson Clabo	Atlanta	0
Sean Locklear	Seattle	0
Ryan Diem	Indianapolis	0
Matt Light	New England	0
Mark Colombo	Dallas	0
Jonathan Stinchcomb	New Orleans	0
Ichekuku Ndukwe	Kansas City	0
David Stewart	Tennessee	0
Charlie Johnson	Indianapolis	0

If you're a Packers fan, it probably won't surprise you to see a pair of Green Bay offensive linemen near the top of the list for sacks allowed by tackles.

But no one expected Packers right tackle Allen Barbre or fill-in tackle Daryn Colledge to be anything more than adequate. Barbre is truly the Packers' weakest link now that Chad Clifton is back at left tackle. And as we documented last year, Cardinals right tackle Levi Brown struggles with pass blocking, so seeing him near the top of the list is almost to be expected.

But seeing Panthers' franchise player Jordan Gross among the list of shame is pretty shocking. It seems Julius Peppers isn't the only Panthers star who has struggled at times this year. Gross had a disastrous three-sacks-allowed game against the Redskins as Andre Carter beat him a couple of times on simple speed rushes around the outside. One of those five sacks came when he appeared to miss his assignment on an overload blitz by the Eagles, but he's also been beaten multiple times one-on-one.

At the other end of the spectrum, Indianapolis has allowed only two sacks all season and neither has been allowed by an offensive tackle. The Falcons have also allowed only two sacks -- both in the season opener against the Dolphins. Part of that can be credited to Matt Ryan's quick release, but Tyson Clabo (0 sacks) and Sam Baker (1 sack) also deserve lots of praise.

It's also impressive to see Steelers right tackle Willie Colon among the unblemished. Colon has had pass protection problems in the past (6.5 sacks last year), but he's shown significant improvement this season.

Here are some other notes from watching the lines for Week Six.

-- There is a lot of legitimate criticism of Andy Reid's decision to forget the running game in the Eagles' shocking upset loss to the Raiders. But it's nearly as surprising that the Raiders' leaky offensive line was able to handle the Eagles' pass rush. Oakland's line has had lots of turnovers this year -- three diferent players have started at left guard, there have been two different centers and two different right tackles. Erik Pears, the fill-in left guard and right tackle, has been a weak link with four sacks and the Raiders need to work on their backs blitz pick-up -- the running backs are responsible for four sacks -- but left tackle Mario Henderson (1.5 sacks allowed) is giving the Raiders their first solid play at left tackle in years.

-- The Kansas City Chiefs may need to rethink some of their blocking schemes. Tight end Sean Ryan gave up his fifth sack of the season on Sunday against the Redskins. No other tight end in the league has given up more than two sacks this year.

It's hard to blame Ryan too much for this. He's given up sacks to Osi Umenyiora, Brian Orakpo and Juqua Parker. It's hard to ask a tight end to adequately block three of the better pass rushers in the NFC East. Ryan bounced round to three different teams last year, so he's fortunate to have a starting job, but the Chiefs are asking him to do things that he's not really capable of doing when they ask him to handle defensive ends one-on-one.

-- There's been a lot of explanations given for the Broncos' amazing defensive turnaround. And there are a lot of good reasons to explain why the Broncos have gone from 29th last year in yards allowed to second this year.

You can credit new defensive coordinator Mike Nolan first of all for giving the defense an identity. Last year the Broncos switched back and forth between the 3-4 and the 4-3 like they were changing socks. And even when they did go with the 3-4, they did it with undersized linebackers like Boss Bailey while asking undersized defensive ends like Elvis Dumervill to play up on the line.

This year Nolan has made them a 3-4 team with an identity, and he's done an excellent job of getting pass rushers like Dumervill into situations to create havoc.

But what stood out against the Chargers was Nolan's clever use of delayed blitzes. You don't often see delayed blitzes because they usually take too long to develop pressure against the fast-paced NFL offenses. You have to time it perfectly -- rush too soon and the offense can adjust to pick up the second blitzer, rush too late and it doesn't even matter.

But Nolan pulled out the delayed blitz in perfect situations against the Chargers. San Diego likes to throw deep to Vincent Jackson and the rest of their crew of tall receivers, so the delayed blitz has a little more time to reach Phillip Rivers.

It worked three different times against the Chargers. On the first sack, defensive back Andre Goodman waited until a linebacker had fully occupied the Chargers tailback serving as the quarterback's last line of defense. By delaying his rush, Goodman got a free rush at Rivers for an easy sack. The same approach worked later for a sack by linebacker D.J. Williams. It also worked to a degree on the Broncos' last sack of the night, although defensive linemen Darrell Reid simply beat Louis Vasquez for the sack.

Between the Lines: Which Tackles Are Starring and Which Are Struggling? originally appeared on NFL FanHouse on Thu, 22 Oct 2009 14:45:00 EST . Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Pocket Presence: Derek Anderson Plays Better, Still Stinks

Bruce Ciskie — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 18:00:00 EST

Filed under: Bills, Browns, Panthers, Raiders, Redskins, NFL Quarterbacks

It's often said that a team with two quarterbacks really doesn't have any. With that spirit in mind, FanHouse will keep you updated weekly on NFL teams facing potential quarterback controversies.

Give Derek Anderson credit. He got better. He put that "15 incompletions in 17 attempts" disaster behind him with a much more quarterback-like effort against Pittsburgh Sunday. It wasn't enough to take the Browns off this list for the first time this season, but there are indications that Cleveland has settled on their guy, no matter how many of his passes bounce off the grass.

Cleveland Browns: Derek Anderson and Brady Quinn

Anderson hit nine of 24 passes against Pittsburgh, even topping 100 yards and managing a touchdown pass. However, the Browns scored one offensive touchdown, relied way too much on the wildcat, and lost convincingly to Pittsburgh. While it is starting to sound like this is Anderson's job to completely screw up, the Browns would be delusional to think he deserves that kind of consideration.

Quinn, it could be argued, hasn't gotten nearly a fair shake in this battle. He faced elite defenses in each of his three starts, two of them on the road. Anderson is hitting 44 percent of his throws, averaging less than five yards per attempt (despite his "big arm" reputation), and has thrown three picks for every touchdown he has so far.

At this point, however, it probably doesn't matter who the quarterback is. This team is a lost cause at 1-5.

Status update: Very warm

Buffalo Bills: Trent Edwards and Ryan Fitzpatrick

It wouldn't take much to outplay Mark Sanchez on this day, and Fitzpatrick got it done. Filling in for an injured Edwards, who had started the day by hitting his first five throws, Fitzpatrick was erratic but still a winner. The Terrell Owens failure continues, and the insertion of rookie Jamon Meredith at right tackle didn't solve much up front. But a win is a win, and now the Bills have a decision to make.

It's been said that you can't lose your job over an injury. However, Edwards seemed well on his way to losing the job before he was injured. Not only that, but while it wasn't at all pretty, Fitzpatrick at least found a way to win a game. Of course, they needed Sanchez to throw five picks to make it happen, but Fitzpatrick did have his good moments. At the very least, this should give Dick Jauron something to think about.

Status update: Very warm

Washington Redskins: Jason Campbell and Todd Collins

Campbell got the hook in the Redskins' disastrous loss to Kansas City Sunday, but it is likely not the end of him. It's not like Collins lit up the Chiefs. Actually, he was statistically worse than Campbell. Collins pulled an Aaron Rodgers on a late snap deep in Redskin territory, as he held the ball entirely too long and took a sack for a safety that ended whatever minuscule chance the Redskins had to win the game.

Coach Jim Zorn has said Campbell is likely to start Monday night, and perhaps the offense will get a jump-start with consultant Sherm Lewis taking over as the play-caller for Zorn. Campbell has shown some real upside in his short career as a starter, but the reality is that he may not be best-suited as an every-down starting quarterback in the NFL.

Status update: Very warm

Oakland Raiders: JaMarcus Russell and Bruce Gradkowski

Carolina Panthers: Jake Delhomme and Matt Moore

Yes, their teams won Sunday. However, it's hard to feel good about how the starting quarterbacks played. Neither Delhomme nor Russell were effective, and both have to continue to be on thin ice with their respective teams.

The Panthers can't count on the running game to carry them to victory every week, and while the Raiders' defense put on a bit of an eye-opening performance, it's hard to imagine them repeating it given how inconsistent their effort and level of play have been in recent years.

Status updates: Warm

Pocket Presence: Derek Anderson Plays Better, Still Stinks originally appeared on NFL FanHouse on Wed, 21 Oct 2009 18:00:00 EST . Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Zebra Report: A Good Ejection, Bad Reviews and Seeing the Whole Play

Matt Snyder — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 13:00:00 EST

Filed under: Broncos, Buccaneers, Chargers, Jaguars, Panthers, Rams, NFL Referees

Zebra Report is FanHouse's analysis of actual NFL rules and how they are to be applied ... because most fans think they could do a better job than the NFL officials, yet definitely could not. Click here for an introduction as to how we do things.

I'll agree with the defenders of Dante Wesley on one front, but just one: he hasn't made a career out of being a dirty player. Sunday, though, he was. What Wesley did, whether intentional or not, was one of the most egregious things I've ever seen done on a football field. Honestly, I didn't even think I'd have to cover it for Zebra Report, but I've seen so many absolutely appalling arguments in defense of Wesley on comment boards across the internet, that I feel I have to. It's simply mind-boggling (and, as a football fan, a bit embarrassing) that some people seriously think his hit was, or should have been, legal.

The kick-catching interference call by the officials was a no-brainer. They'll never have to make an easier call. I want to give them kudos for ejecting him. That's a total judgment call and I believe it to be the right one. I don't care if he "didn't mean to" hit Clifton Smith before the ball arrived or not. That's like saying you didn't mean to punch someone in the face. He still did it.

Anyway, on to the rules. I can't believe I have to do this, but the fact that Smith didn't call a fair catch is irrelevant. I keep seeing Wesley defenders post some derivative of "he should have called fair catch" or "the referees called fair catch infraction" Um ... he has protection anyway and no they didn't. If that's what the official said, he misspoke. The penalty is called "kick-catching interference." Here:

Rule 10-1: Article 1 During a scrimmage kick that crosses the line of scrimmage, or during a free kick, members of the kicking team are prohibited from interfering with any receiver making an attempt to catch the airborne kick, or from obstructing or hindering his path to the airborne kick, and regardless of whether any signal was given.

Item 1: Contact with Receiver. It is interference if a player of the kicking team contacts the receiver, or causes a passive player of either team to contact the receiver, before or simultaneous to his touching the ball.

As far as the ejection, you can use these two items:

Rule 12-2-8 (it is unnecessary roughness for ... ) (e) unnecessarily running, diving into, cutting, or throwing the body against or on a player who (i) is out of the play or (ii) should not have reasonably anticipated such contact by an opponent, before or after the ball is dead; or throwing the runner to the ground after the ball is dead;

Rule 3-6 (players can be disqualified for ... ) (b) flagrant roughing of a kicker, passer, or any other opponent (12-2-6 and 12-2-12);

I know this is technically a judgment call and I've said I won't be making these statements this year, but this play was so flagrant I feel compelled to break my own rule and say it was the correct judgment.

Finally, the worst argument in the history of arguments is the whole "this is football, not soccer" one. Punt returners have always had protection against a hit like this. Go whine about how "real men" played football back in the 1970s if you want, but you need to ask punt returners from the '70s if they were protected against hits like this: because they were. This isn't an opinion, it is a fact. Thus, if you disagree, you are wrong. There are no two ways about it. Period. Are we clear?

There, now that I've got that off my chest, we can move on.

- Bernie Miklasz of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch posted this paragraph on the Rams-Jags game's officiating in his post-game thoughts.

* The officiating was incoherent Sunday. They got it wrong on a couple of pass interference calls against the Rams. Even when referee Jeff Triplette had a chance to review an onfield mistake - the sideline catch by Holt - he still got it wrong and didn't reverse the ruling on the field. NFL officials, for the most part, are frontrunners. (I apologize to the many good officials out there, including my friend Joe Larrew, because I know it isn't true of all officials.) They know who is good, they know who is bad, and they know who the "name" players are. It may not be something that they're even aware of outwardly, but it's always been my belief that the zebras give the benefit of the doubt to good teams and name players. Look, the Rams didn't lose the game because of the officials. But it's hard to imagine a more poorly officiated game than the one I saw Sunday.

First of all, I'm not going to dispute or reinforce his opinion about officials subconsciously favoring the better teams. I know it doesn't happen for me in high school games, but those aren't famous players. Of the two NFL officials I've met, I don't know either one well enough to say if they do this -- especially if it is subconscious -- so we'll just leave that part alone.

I will dispute his argument on the pass interference calls -- at least the one I saw. First, remember the seven principles of pass interference, which were covered in the third incident in a past Zebra Report. The first one (a) says that it is interference when contact by a player "who is not playing the ball restricts the opponent's opportunity to catch the ball." In the fourth quarter, James Laurinaitis was called for interference. He was running toward the receiver. Without turning his head back around toward the ball, he held up his hands. The receiver tried to get back to the pass and ran into Laurinaitis. Like it or not, he restricted the receiver's ability to catch the football while he wasn't playing the ball. It's a simple call. This is the only interference call I saw, so I'll apologize in advance to good ol' Bernie (whose writing I really enjoy) if he wasn't disputing this particular call.

Of course, the replay review Miklasz mentions was egregious. It was very clear for anyone who had a television set that Torry Holt's second foot was out of bounds. It wasn't a toe, either, it was half of his foot. I'm not sure if the referee, Triplette, didn't see the same replay the fans did or what. If not, this was a mistake by the replay system as a whole. This wasn't even a judgment call, in my opinion. It was an absolute fact that half of Holt's foot was out of bounds. I'm usually a defender, of sorts, of the officials, but this is unacceptable. I would hope Triplette himself would agree with me after seeing further replays.

- Speaking of botched replays, I'm not sure how the officials could change the Brandon Stokley touchdown late Monday night and still give him a touchdown (watch it on youtube by clicking here). The initial call was clearly that Stokley didn't get into the end-zone until after he was on the ground and rolled in. That much was evident because the line judge waited to throw his hands in the air until after Stokley rolled in from the ground. If the call on the field was that he caught the ball in the end-zone, we would have seen an immediate signal.

The replay clearly showed Stokley was touched by Antonio Cromartie when on the ground and not in the end-zone. If you need conclusive evidence to overturn a call, they had it there. However, the officials then awarded the touchdown on the grounds that he caught the ball when it was breaking the plane of the end-zone. It seems as though they found conclusive evidence to call it a touchdown in a different manner than the on-field call awarded one. You can't find a single angle where the ball was conclusively breaking the plane of the end-zone on the catch, at least as far as I could tell. It seems to me the only conclusive part of the replay was the touch, thus, they should have placed the ball on the half yard line. That's my judgment, though, so I guess I shouldn't say it (damn these self-imposed rules).

- In that same game, the officials got together and got a tricky enforcement correct. There was a pass interference call in favor of Brandon Marshall, but Marshall -- being the lovable, level-headed guy he is -- went ballistic because he didn't see the flag. He was flagged for unsportsmanlike conduct. Since one foul was during the play and the other was after, how could the penalties offset and mean the down should be replayed? Here you go:

Rule 14-9: If there has been a foul by either team during a down and there is a dead ball foul by the other team in the action immediately after the end of the down, it is a double foul, and all rules for enforcement of double fouls apply (see 14-3-1). Exception: If the scoring team commits a dead ball foul after a score, the score counts,
and the penalty is enforced on the kickoff.

And 14-3-1: If there is a double foul (3-11-2-c) without a change of possession, the penalties are offset and the down is replayed at the previous spot. If it was a scrimmage down, the number of the next down and the necessary line is the same as for the down for which the new one is substituted.

Say what you will about judgment calls, but it's pretty amazing how the officials rarely mis-enforce tricky stuff like this. With a 136-page rule book, that's good work to go from memory out there and always get it right.

- Finally, we don't usually cover college plays, but this was submitted to me and I thought it was a good time to talk about a general guideline for officials of all levels. In order to make a call, you have to see the entire act. You cannot get into assuming things.

For example, if you are behind a player and see his head turn to the side really fast, you cannot throw a flag for facemask. It might have happened, but it may not have. You can't just assume penalties. People in the crowd, by the way, do this with alarming frequency. It's actually a running joke among officials. If you see someone sprawling out like superman and landing on his stomach, he must have gotten blocked in the back, right? But what if he just tripped? Do you want to flag the offense for a clumsy defender?

Anyway, the reason I bring this up is that it appears in a college game this past weekend, an official violated this premise. Watch this play:

I think it pretty well speaks for itself. No. 96 for Arkansas got blocked and got flagged for unnecessary roughness -- basically for shedding a block. It's obvious the official who made the call didn't see the entire play. Thanks to reader Robin for the submission. A final note: the SEC did admit the call was incorrect -- not that it helps the Razorbacks in coping with the egregious call.

Got a rules-related question? Whether it's elementary, high school or NFL, email TZR and he'll see what he can do.

Zebra Report: A Good Ejection, Bad Reviews and Seeing the Whole Play originally appeared on NFL FanHouse on Tue, 20 Oct 2009 13:00:00 EST . Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Dante Wesley Hit on Clifton Smith Yields 1-Game Suspension

Michael David Smith — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 17:48:00 EST

Filed under: Buccaneers, Panthers

Carolina Panthers defensive back Dante Wesley has been suspended one game for a cheap shot on Buccaneers return man Clifton Smith, the NFL announced on Monday.

The brutal hit came when Smith was attempting to return a punt and Wesley was the gunner on the coverage team. As Smith was getting set up to field the punt, Wesley launched himself into Smith, who was looking up at the ball and never saw the hit coming.

While Smith lay motionless on the ground, a fight broke out between the Buccaneers and Panthers. Eventually order was restored, Smith walked off the field, and Wesley was penalized 15 yards and ejected from the game.

The NFL's full statement:

Defensive back Dante Wesley of the Carolina Panthers has been suspended without pay for one game by NFL Executive Vice President of Football Operations Ray Anderson for a flagrant violation of player safety rules. Specifically, on a punt coverage play on Sunday, Wesley left his feet, launched himself and made shoulder and forearm contact with the neck and head area of Tampa Bay punt returner Clifton Smith, who had not caught or touched the ball and was in a defenseless posture.

The suspension will sideline Wesley for the Panthers' game against the Buffalo Bills on Sunday, October 25.

In a letter to Wesley, Anderson wrote: "The playing rules (Rule 10, Section 1, Article 1) specifically provide that a member of the kicking team is prohibited from interfering with a receiver attempting to catch an airborne kick. The prohibited contact in this case went well beyond simply interfering with the receiver. Instead, by striking your defenseless opponent in the head and neck area, you committed an unnecessary and unnecessarily dangerous act that is specifically prohibited by the rules."

Anderson added: "Your actions are of particular concern in light of the emphasis that our office has placed on developing and enforcing rules designed to protect players from injury, including head and neck injuries. The safety of our players is paramount to all of us in the NFL."

There was no word on whether Wesley will be fined in addition to losing his weekly paycheck.

Dante Wesley Hit on Clifton Smith Yields 1-Game Suspension originally appeared on NFL FanHouse on Mon, 19 Oct 2009 17:48:00 EST . Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Dante Wesley Ejected After Hit Causes Brawl in Panthers-Bucs Game

Will Brinson — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 18:53:00 EST

Filed under: Buccaneers, Panthers

Dante Wesley isn't typically a big part of the Carolina Panthers' game plan, although he made some noticeable news Sunday. And while the Panthers didn't exactly look like world-beaters against Tampa Bay, they won for the second straight week (albeit against another shoddy opponent), and that's what's important. Also important, if you like brawls in football games, is what Wesley did while covering a punt, which was about as cool as filming a trash-talking YouTube in a bowtie.

Panthers 28, Buccaneers 21: Recap | Box Score | All NFL Scores

Buccaneers punt returner Clifton Smith, who was in position to field the punt but hadn't signaled for a fair catch, was leveled on the second-quarter play. Smith remained on the ground for a few minutes before being helped to his feet; the Bucs said at halftime that he suffered a concussion from the blow. Wesley was ejected for the late hit as players from both teams stormed off the sidelines.

After the game, Wesley made it known he wasn't trying to hurt Smith, saying "I was just trying to make a play." The eight-year veteran also stated he hopes he doesn't draw a fine from the league.

"You can check my record. ... I've never really tried to hurt anybody. I've never tried to take a cheap shot on anybody," Wesley claimed.

The Bucs, however, were still incensed following the close loss:

"First thing I'll say is, I don't feel like I'm cooled down enough to give you an answer," [special teams coach Richard] Bisaccia said. "The other thing I'll say is, I'm glad he's all right and hopefully we'll determine when he'll be ready to go back in and play.

"It's just some bad ball right there."

Tampa Bay players like safety Tanard Jackson pulled no punches when describing Wesley's hit. "It was a dirty play," Jackson told The Tampa Tribune. "It was handled correctly. Whatever the league does from there, it's on them. Personally, I think it was a dirty play."

Dante Wesley Ejected After Hit Causes Brawl in Panthers-Bucs Game originally appeared on NFL FanHouse on Sun, 18 Oct 2009 18:53:00 EST . Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Zebra Report: Refs Made Correct No-Call On Redskins' Costly Muffed Punt

Matt Snyder — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 10:00:00 EST

Filed under: Bengals, Giants, Panthers, Raiders, Ravens, Redskins, NFL Referees

Zebra Report is FanHouse's analysis of actual NFL rules and how they are to be applied ... because most fans think they could do a better job than the NFL officials, yet definitely could not. Click here for an introduction as to how we do things.

One week later and we know now that the league is mandating the roughing the passer calls we discussed last week. This past week, we also learned that the league admitted error on the Mike Sims-Walker touchdown we discussed, which should help to relieve some of the tension fans are carrying about a perceived lack of accountability. I was pleased to see the league's admission. Let's get to the reviews for this week.

Antwaan Randle El is contacted by his own teammate while trying to catch a punt -- the Panthers recovered the retained the football in the aftermath. As you can see in the youtube video below, Randle El's teammate was clearly blocked into him by a member of the Panthers coverage unit. Watch and see -- the play begins at the 3:22 mark.

After the game, referee Walt Coleman explained:

"What happened was, the two guys were blocking each other. The Washington guy got blocked into his own man, so there was no interference. All we had to figure out who touched it first. If the Washington player is stationary and just standing there and not trying to block, then he can't do that. If they are both trying to block, then he can knock him into him. Because they were both engaged, then that's why there wasn't a foul or anything wrong with that play. If the Washington player is stationary and just standing there and the Carolina player had come down there and knocked him, then it would have been totally different."

Coleman is referring to a very specific and important part of Rule 10-1-1-Item 1 (it's bolded):

It is interference if a player of the kicking team contacts the receiver, or causes a passive player of either team to contact the receiver, before or simultaneous to his touching the ball.

From watching the highlight, it is very clear the Redskins player was actively attempting (attempting being the operative word because he was being physically dominated) to block the Panthers' coverage man, so he was not passive in the least. Thus, there is no penalty for kick-catching interference and the officials made the correct call.

For what it's worth, Redskins head coach Jim Zorn now understands the call but stopped short of expressing regret in wasting a challenge on the play.

"It was very difficult at that particular time, he said. "I talked to NFL Vice President of Officiating Mike Pereira about that this morning about the rule. I read the paragraph in the rule book which talks about getting the opportunity to have a fair catch. It was explained within that paragraph what the problem was. I could have saved a timeout, but it was worth it for me to challenge. That was a key play in the game. I wasn't going to save a timeout for that. It was my duty, in my mind, to challenge that."

Reader Scott submitted this play for examination:

"On an extra point try (in the Bengals-Ravens game), the ball was snapped wide of the holder and a scramble ensued. Once the ball was recovered by a Ravens player, the play was whistled dead. However, this was all rendered moot because a flag was thrown for illegal procedure, lining up over center. What exactly does that mean and what is the rule? Second, is there ever a time that a defensive team can recover a ball during a point after or two-point conversion and attempt to score?"

First of all, thanks for the submission, Scott. Both parts of the question are cut-and-dry rules, though possibly not known to many fans.

Rule 7-2-2 - During a field-goal attempt or a Kick Try, a Team B player, who is within one yard of the line of scrimmage at the snap, must have his helmet outside the snapper's shoulder pads.

There could be some confusion here because in high school and all lower levels, you can line up directly over the center, you just have to give him the opportunity to raise his head after the snap before contacting him. The NFL probably just didn't want to deal with judging what a reasonable amount of time was for the snapper to raise his head. Trust me, there are plenty of high school teams who tell their snapper to never raise his head -- then complain he was roughed when someone waits two seconds before trying to break through.

As for the second part of the question ...

Rule 11-3-2c: If the defense gains possession, the ball is dead immediately. The defensive team cannot score during a Try.

The confusion here likely stems from college football, where the defense can return an extra point attempt for two points.

Justin Fargas fumbles as his forward progress is stopped ... or is it? You can check out the video in MDS' post about Darrius Heyward-Bey's blazing speed. Fortunately this play had no bearing on the outcome of the game, as the Giants stomped a mud-hole in the Raiders. The reason I say "fortunately" is because I believe the decision on when to blow the whistle on plays like this is the most difficult thing any official has to do during any given game. Blowing the whistle a millisecond too early or too late could gravely cost either team. If a team believes their ball-carrier was about to break free, it's the fault of the official. If the defense believes they caused a fumble before the progress was stopped, but a whistle was blown, it's the fault of the official.

I actually wrote more in depth about the difficulty of when to blow the whistle last season. I firmly believe this is one of those things where you truly don't know what it's like until you've experienced it (and if you have, you know what I'm talking about).

Got a rules-related question? Whether it's elementary, high school or NFL, email TZR and he'll see what he can do.

Zebra Report: Refs Made Correct No-Call On Redskins' Costly Muffed Punt originally appeared on NFL FanHouse on Wed, 14 Oct 2009 10:00:00 EST . Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Pocket Presence: Has Derek Anderson Won the Job?

Bruce Ciskie — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 18:00:00 EST

Filed under: Bills, Browns, Buccaneers, Panthers, Raiders, Redskins, NFL Quarterbacks

It's often said that a team with two quarterbacks really doesn't have any. With that spirit in mind, FanHouse will keep you updated weekly on NFL teams facing potential quarterback controversies.

For the Cleveland Browns, Sunday was at least a respectable performance. Now it's time for them to build on that. But have the 0-4 Browns settled on a starting quarterback?

Cleveland Browns: Derek Anderson and Brady Quinn

Anderson played pretty well in a 23-20 overtime loss to Cincinnati. However, the Browns struggled to move the ball in overtime, and the Bengals made them pay in the end.

This was easily the best Cleveland's offense has looked this season, and perhaps they'll get even better without walking distraction Braylon Edwards around anymore. Anderson seems to have developed a chemistry with young receiver Mohamed Massquoi, who caught eight balls and averaged close to 20 yards per catch Sunday. The winless Browns will stick with Anderson again this weekend, and if he can build off his performance against Cincinnati, Quinn will struggle to see the field again this season.

Status update: Very warm

Tampa Bay Buccaneers: Josh Johnson and Josh Freeman

Johnson appears to have a long way to go as an NFL quarterback. He ran well and appeared somewhat comfortable in his first NFL start, but the Buccaneers offense was hampered by a lack of big plays. Johnson struggled to throw the ball deep, and only connected with star receiver Antonio Bryant four times for a paltry 44 yards.

The Philadelphia defense is no easy opponent for Johnson, but he'll try to advance himself this Sunday at Lincoln Financial Field. Expect to see more short passes as the Bucs try to make Johnson more and more comfortable with playing at this level.

At 0-4, there might be a temptation to pull the trigger and go with the bigger-armed Freeman, but this is not the time. That move can wait at least a few more weeks.

Status update: Warm

Carolina Panthers: Jake Delhomme, Matt Moore, and A.J. Feeley

Now that the 0-3 Panthers are off their bye week, we'll watch carefully how Delhomme performs against the Redskins. If he is still a turnover machine, he could be in trouble. However, significant improvement will be expected, since Carolina had a week to lick their wounds and make some corrections.

Moore might not be highly-regarded, but he's been in the system for a while, and there's no reason to hide him on the bench if Delhomme continues to underperform.

Status update: Lukewarm

Washington Redskins: Jason Campbell and Todd Collins
Oakland Raiders: JaMarcus Russell and Bruce Gradkowski
Buffalo Bills: Trent Edwards and Ryan Fitzpatrick

These three teams are lumped together because there has been no real indication that they're willing to make a change, but the on-field play by the starters has to improve. If it doesn't, teams really have no choice but to explore other options. The Redskins and Raiders are getting competitive play from their defenses, and the burden of carrying the whole team is too much. Buffalo has quality skill players at running back and wide receiver, yet Edwards can't seem to move the ball consistently.

Status updates: Lukewarm

Pocket Presence: Has Derek Anderson Won the Job? originally appeared on NFL FanHouse on Wed, 07 Oct 2009 18:00:00 EST . Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Between the Lines: Julius Peppers' Effort Leaves Something to Be Desired

JJ Cooper — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 09:31:00 EST

Filed under: Cowboys, Panthers, NFC South, NFL Analysis

Every week we take a look at some aspect of line play--one of the most important but least noticed keys to a team's success. Click here for previous Between The Lines.

Julius Peppers isn't happy. He wanted to be anywhere but in Carolina this year, but when the Panthers franchised him, he was left with no choice but to return to the Panthers for another season.

Things could be worse. He's getting paid $16.7 million this year as the team's franchise player. After watching every snap of the Cowboys' game, it's hard to say he's earning it.

Two years ago, Peppers picked up only 2.5 sacks in an extremely disappointing season. But he bounced back last year to record 14.5 sacks. With the way he played on Monday, it's hard to see him getting back to double digits this year.Peppers finished the game with one tackle and one assist. He had no quarterback pressures and no sacks. He now has nine tackles and one sack in three games. For the Panthers' defense to work, Peppers has to create havoc. It's not happening.

Worse than the stats was the lethargy with which he played the game. If you're being charitable, you could say that Peppers played against the Cowboys with a lot of hesitation, as if he wanted to make sure he didn't get caught out of position. Instead of firing off the ball he took choppy steps and stood around. If you're more inclined to be harsh, you could say that he's trying to play his way out of Carolina.

When the Cowboys ran the ball, they were able to run right at Peppers. Tight end Jason Witten showed he could block Peppers single-handedly, like he did on three different occasions including runs of 10 and 18 yards. They were also able to fool Peppers, like they did on a Patrick Crayton 14-yard reverse. Peppers was left unblocked, but he found himself out of position as the backside contain when Crayton ran right on by him.

When the Cowboys ran away from Peppers, they didn't worry about Peppers using his speed to track down the ball carrier from the backside. With few exceptions he often stood around on those plays and just stalemated with left tackle Flozell Adams. One exception came when he ran downfield to jump on the pile on a run up the middle by Felix Jones, although he wasn't credited with an assist. Peppers' best play against the run came when he cut inside on a third and goal and helped tackle Tashard Choice to help force a field goal attempt. It was Peppers' only tackle on a running play.

But run stuffing has never been Peppers' biggest strength. He's one of the league's elite pass rushers as he's shown by racking up five different double-digit sack seasons. Against the Cowboys, Adams handled him with no problems. Carolina did move him around a little bit. He got a little better rush when lined up against right tackle Marc Colombo, although Colombo was able to push him past Tony Romo as Romo stepped up into the pocket. It was the same story when Peppers moved inside to defensive tackle. Peppers got penetration against guard Leonard Davis, but Davis then rode him outside as Romo stepped up.

There were even two plays when a Cowboys back was able to cut Peppers and handle him on pass plays. Peppers had no hurries or sacks, but he did have one tackle on a pass play where Romo decided to tuck and run. After rushing upfield on a speed rush, Peppers did cut back to track Romo down five yards downfield.

But that was it. There were more pass plays where Peppers simply stood up at the line and was content to give a half-hearted effort than there were plays where he came close to sacking Romo. The Cowboys did double-team Peppers on eight of his 59 snaps, but that was more a case of giving respect to a once-great defensive end rather than by need.

If you didn't know Pepppers' reputation and watched Monday night's game, you wouldn't pick him out as the Panthers' best defensive player. That title would probably go to linebacker John Beason. He wasn't even the Panthers' best defensive end on Monday--that would go to Charles Johnson. While Peppers was ineffective as a pass rusher, Johnson got to Romo to nearly force a fumble on one pass play (Romo's arm was coming forward so it was ruled an incomplete pass), he had two other plays where he nearly got to Romo.

Peppers wasn't even significantly better than his backup Tyler Brayton. Brayton had four tackles, blew up one running play with solid penetration into the backfield, made another tackle on a run away from him because he hustled down the line and nearly got to Romo on a pass play--all in significantly less playing time than Peppers. He may not have Peppers' ability, but Brayton's effort was an equalizer on Monday.

Being outproduced by his backup isn't what you would expect out of a $16.7 million man. But if Peppers keeps playing like he did on Monday, he may get his wish: it's hard to imagine the Panthers spending nearly $20 million to franchise Peppers next yearpers next year to get production like he's given in the first three weeks.

Between the Lines: Julius Peppers' Effort Leaves Something to Be Desired originally appeared on NFL FanHouse on Thu, 01 Oct 2009 09:31:00 EST . Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Pocket Presence: Browns, Buccaneers Make Changes

Bruce Ciskie — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 14:00:00 EST

Filed under: Browns, Buccaneers, Panthers, Rams

It's often said that a team with two quarterbacks really doesn't have any. With that spirit in mind, FanHouse will keep you updated weekly on NFL teams facing potential quarterback controversies.

We're here every week, hoping to make some sense of quarterback issues facing teams in the NFL. Sometimes, it feels like we're picking on Eric Mangini and the Cleveland Browns. However, at 0-3, and with little reason to think the problems in the passing game are just going to disappear, the Browns again find themselves at the top of the heap.

Cleveland Browns: Brady Quinn and Derek Anderson

When Quinn got the hook Sunday, the hope was that the offense would start to click. Instead, things appeared to get worse. Anderson threw three picks and could only muster a field goal, as the Ravens torched Cleveland 34-3.

Despite Anderson's horrific performance, Cleveland coach Eric Mangini has named him the starter for Sunday's game against suddenly resurgent Cincinnati. The hope is that a week to prepare will allow Anderson to be more successful (wouldn't take much), and it also gives the coaches a chance to put in a gameplan that tailors itself more to Anderson's deep-ball skills than Quinn's checkdown game.

The problem with a checkdown quarterback is that you generally need elite talent elsewhere on the field for him to be successful. Cleveland lacks that kind of talent, leaving Quinn on an island when it's time to throw. In that regard, the Browns could very well be better off with the high-risk, high-reward style Anderson brings to the table.

Or maybe not.

Status update: Hot

Tampa Bay Buccaneers: Josh Johnson, Josh Freeman, and Byron Leftwich

The Browns weren't the only team to make a switch at quarterback for their next game. After an 0-3 start with Leftwich under center, one that included a performance against the Giants on Sunday that could best be described as "hopelessly inept," the Bucs have seen enough.

Leftwich is out, and Johnson starts Sunday at Washington, as the Redskins try to avoid a 1-3 disaster. It's not so much anything Leftwich did wrong. Instead, it appears Tampa coach Raheem Morris has recognized this is a lost season, so he might as well see what his youngsters have before it's too late. Might as well start with the guy he just recently labeled a "career backup."

The Buccaneers will go with first-round pick Freeman as the backup, meaning Leftwich is relegated to baseball cap/clipboard/hand signals duty for the foreseeable future.

Status update: Very warm

St. Louis Rams: Marc Bulger and Kyle Boller

The change here was made out of necessity Sunday, as Bulger was injured against the Packers. It doesn't sound like he will miss significant time, but rookie coach Steve Spagnuolo got a good look at Boller in live action.

While the results weren't great, the Rams showed some potential, scoring on three straight possessions around halftime to make things very interesting before Green Bay was able to pull away. They hardly looked explosive, nor did they remind anyone of the Saints, but the offense moved with Boller at the helm, once he figured out his receivers weren't eight feet tall.

Spagnuolo is likely to stick with a healthy Bulger, but if he's ineffective for an extended period, he has to know that Boller can step in and competently run the offense. It might not lead to an immediate change at quarterback, but it could make Bulger's leash a bit shorter.

Status update: Warm

Carolina Panthers: Jake Delhomme, Matt Moore, and A.J. Feeley

Every time Delhomme throws a killer interception, you wonder how much longer he has, especially as Feeley continues to gain knowledge of the team and the offense. It seems that Delhomme is getting close to his last chance, because coach John Fox can ill afford to keep losing games in gut-wrenching fashion.

The 0-3 Panthers appear to be sticking with the veteran Delhomme for now. Nothing will change this week, as the team has their bye week. This situation certainly is worth a close eye when Carolina hosts Washington in Week 5.

Status update: Warm

Pocket Presence: Browns, Buccaneers Make Changes originally appeared on NFL FanHouse on Wed, 30 Sep 2009 14:00:00 EST . Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Monday Night Football Live Chat: Carolina Panthers vs. Dallas Cowboys

Adam Gretz — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 19:15:00 EST

Filed under: Cowboys, Panthers

The national spotlight is once again on the house that Jerry built as Tony Romo and the Dallas Cowboys host Steve Smith and the Carolina Panthers. The Cowboys debut in their new digs didn't exactly go as planned, thanks in large part to Romo's three picks and one hilarious pick from Jerry Jones.

Meanwhile, 20,000 or so fans that bought standing room tickets had a view of ... well ... nothing. We don't know what's going to happen tonight, but we do know one thing: Cage dancers will be in attendance (we hope). We'll also be live chatting all of the action, so please join us at 8:15 for all of the fun.

&amp;lt;a href="http://www.coveritlive.com/mobile.php?option=com_mobile&amp;amp;task=viewaltcast&amp;amp;altcast_code=7b5860a89d" &amp;gt;Monday Night Football Live Chat&amp;lt;/a&amp;gt;

Monday Night Football Live Chat: Carolina Panthers vs. Dallas Cowboys originally appeared on NFL FanHouse on Mon, 28 Sep 2009 19:15:00 EST . Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Suicide Pool Solution: Week 3

Brett Pollakoff — Sat, 26 Sep 2009 13:45:00 EST

Filed under: Cowboys, Giants, Packers, Panthers, Ravens, Texans, NFL Gambling

Each week, FanHouse takes a deeper look at the obvious -- and not so obvious -- options for your NFL suicide pool. Standard rules apply: pick one team to win straight up (no point spreads), and each team may only be used once.

If you were fortunate enough to stay away from the Packers and Titans last week, the good news is that you're still alive. The bad news is that you were probably forced to suffer through a shaky first half with the Vikings, or an entire game of misery while rooting in the Redskins.

Thankfully, things look to be a lot easier in Week 3.

With teams like the Ravens, Giants, and Packers all playing against the league's bottom feeders, most should be able to get by unscathed this week. But which of these seemingly lopsided matchups will give you the best chance to win in the weeks to come? Let's take a closer look.

The Ravens will undoubtedly be the majority play this week, and it's tough to find a reason not to take them. After two games, Baltimore has looked like one of the top teams in the league, showing flashes of dominance on both sides of the ball. They're hosting a Cleveland Browns team that has managed just one offensive touchdown over the first two games of the season, and it came two weeks ago.

The Browns managed just six points during their 27-6 shellacking in Denver, while allowing their quarterback to get sacked four times in the second half by the same player -- the Broncos' Elvis Dumervil. Ever heard of the word adjustment, Mr. Mangenius?

When you combine Baltimore's more complete attack with Cleveland's ineptitude, the Ravens are as close as you get to a sure thing in these contests.

But does that mean you take them this week?

If you're just into playing this game week-to-week, then yes, going with Baltimore should take you safely into Week 4. But if you're in it for the long haul, you need to look at the other reasonable options -- along with the rest of the Ravens' schedule -- before making that all-important selection.

The Giants are in Tampa Bay, and the Packers are in St. Louis, and both road favorites should take care of business against two of the worst teams in the league. A good rule to follow in these things, however, is to stay away from picking road teams unless it's absolutely necessary. Let's face it, if a huge underdog is going to rise up and take down a heavy favorite, it's more likely to happen at home than on the road.

The Rams were feisty in Washington last week, and the Bucs showed some fight in Buffalo, after falling behind 17-0 early. With much stronger options on the board, going with a road team this week is an unnecessary risk, with the only upside being the fact that you would get to save the Ravens to use down the road.

But a quick look at Baltimore's schedule shows that they really don't have any easy games at home until Week 14, when they'll host the Detroit Lions. And who knows if you'll even still be around by then, if you choose to go with road favorites when there's an easy pick on the board like the Ravens?

A couple of other options worth mentioning if you're hell-bent on not taking Baltimore include the Cowboys hosting the Panthers, and the Texans hosting the Jaguars.

Jake Delhomme only threw one pick last week -- you know, as opposed to the nine he threw in his previous two games -- and Carolina remained a single score away from Atlanta for most of the game. The Panthers might be slowly righting the ship.

Meanwhile, the Cowboys lead the league in team rushing, but they also gave up 33 points and over 300 yards passing in their loss to the Giants, without getting even a single sack on Eli Manning.

Dallas might win, but all I'm saying is, there are red flags if you're considering this one.

Houston looked great in Tennessee last week, winning a physical shootout and sending the Titans to an 0-2 start. They host a Jaguars team that kept it close against the Colts in Week 1, before they got crushed by the Cardinals in Week 2.

If you must shy away from the Ravens, the Texans appear to be a solid choice. Jacksonville had no answer for Kurt Warner's passing attack. so just imagine what Matt Schaub and Andre Johnson are going to be able to do. And the last time these two teams met in Houston (in December of last year), the Texans won by double digits. And if you need one more stat to convince you, chew on this: Houston is 7-2 when wearing their all red uniforms, which they'll be doing this Sunday.

So, yeah. After all of this analysis, I'm afraid that the Ravens are probably the best selection in Week 3. But hey, when you're in the early stages of what you hope will be a season-long contest, it never hurts to take a closer look at all of your available options.

Good luck this week.

Suicide Pool Solution: Week 3 originally appeared on NFL FanHouse on Sat, 26 Sep 2009 13:45:00 EST . Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Pocket Presence: Kolb, Garcia Wait for McNabb; Quinn Still Shaky

Bruce Ciskie — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 13:30:00 EST

Filed under: Browns, Chiefs, Dolphins, Eagles, Lions, Panthers, NFL Quarterbacks

It's often said that a team with two quarterbacks really doesn't have any. With that spirit in mind, FanHouse will keep you updated weekly on NFL teams facing potential quarterback controversies.

Things are looking interesting in Philadelphia, although Donovan McNabb can come back and ruin all the fun. Meanwhile, there appears to be no end in sight to the situation in Cleveland, where the Browns have looked generally awful when they have the ball.

Philadelphia Eagles: Kevin Kolb and Jeff Garcia

As mentioned, McNabb could return, take the job, and relegate both to the bench. As long as McNabb isn't playing, Eagles coach Andy Reid is faced with a tough decision. Kolb looked shaky, inaccurate, sometimes indecisive, and not very good overall in a loss to New Orleans Sunday. It's not the kind of performance the Eagles can afford to see again, but is it enough to get Garcia a chance to start?

Let's face it: Garcia is rarely a happy backup. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, because no one should want to stand on the sideline in a baseball cap. But it isn't really easy on the head coach or the starting quarterback. Garcia knows the Eagles offense, is obviously capable of running it, and has already won over Philly fans as their starter once. He could do it again.

Then again, he could also end up as the inactive third quarterback when McNabb returns.

Status update: Very warm, until McNabb is ready

Cleveland Browns: Brady Quinn and Derek Anderson

The Browns have scored 26 points in two games. Yes, it's more than the Rams have, but it's still not very impressive. They got six in four quarters against the once-maligned Denver defense Sunday, as the Broncos whipped Cleveland 27-6.

Quinn has been the ringleader of the Browns offense so far. He hasn't done much of anything. He's not throwing with great accuracy, as was advertised. He isn't moving the chains, and he isn't making any big plays.

Yes, Eric Mangini wants his "guy" to succeed, but how long can he watch Quinn struggle without giving Anderson a shot? The Browns are 0-2, and the schedule isn't magically going to get any easier, especially when you consider that the Browns have yet to play a game against an AFC North rival.

Status update: Very warm

Miami Dolphins: Chad Pennington and Chad Henne

It's hard to get a read on this one, but the Dolphins can't be terribly fond of Pennington's play so far. He has been his normal accurate self when it comes to shorter passes, but the Dolphins have had issues putting up points, in part because the passing game has too many moments of ineptitude. Plus, there were already some rumblings that Pennington would be replaced in 2010. If the offense sputters more, will the Dolphins accelerate Chad Henne's timeline?

Status update: Lukewarm

Detroit Lions: Matthew Stafford and Daunte Culpepper

Yes, head coach Jim Schwartz has said Stafford is his guy. No, Stafford isn't hurt. However, the Lions are 0-2, have not looked good on offense, and are going to get Stafford killed if they don't protect him better. Culpepper is a veteran who could have a steadying influence on the offense. Stafford isn't going to be destroyed if the Lions sit him for a few games. In the end, he'd be grateful for the chance to clear his head.

Status update: Lukewarm

Others Worth Watching

Kansas City (Matt Cassel and Tyler Thigpen); Carolina (Jake Delhomme, A.J. Feeley, Matt Moore)

Pocket Presence: Kolb, Garcia Wait for McNabb; Quinn Still Shaky originally appeared on NFL FanHouse on Wed, 23 Sep 2009 13:30:00 EST . Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Carolina's Steve Smith Explains His Jake Delhomme Pep Talk

Nancy Gay — Sat, 19 Sep 2009 16:30:00 EST

Filed under: Panthers, NFL Quarterbacks

Carolina Panthers wide receiver Steve Smith seemed to kick quarterback Jake Delhomme when he was down -- and benched -- last Sunday after committing five turnovers in a hideous 38-10, Week 1 loss to Philadelphia.

This week, Smith called into the WFNZ radio show of former Panthers teammate Frank Garcia to clarify what happened when the receiver seemed to offer some misguided love to his mentally wounded quarterback. Smith said this week's trip to Atlanta to face the 1-0 Falcons seemed a good time to clear the air, prompting the call-in to the show:

"I called in because it just got me. Got under my skin a little bit," Smith said. "Got a little local buzz or national buzz over me being mic'd up last week and what I said to Jake. It is very interesting that some of the YouTubes and some of the people have taken it like (that)."

Well, it was a bit ambiguous. Here's the original dialogue from the man-to-man (albeit overheard by microphones) exchange between Smith and Delhomme on the Panthers' bench. as provided by sportsradiointerviews.com.

Delhomme: "I apologize, bro."

Smith: "Hey, I know you feel like crap. I mean, you're not a very handsome guy, anyway, so ... But, as the performer, the quarterback ... I never really liked you as a quarterback. But as a person, that's who I love. I love you as a person."

Delhomme: "I appreciate it. (Inaudible) I just didn't get enough on that damn ball. I knew where I was throwing it, I just threw it too high."

All week, Delhomme has been brutally dissected by NFL analysts and fans who wonder whether his Week 1 meltdown is a repeat of his 2008 playoff crash. Perhaps Smith felt like he was the first to pile on last Sunday, which inspired him to do some damage control on the radio.

Then again, Smith probably realized that the feast-or-famine Delhomme is his starting quarterback -- for now -- and anyone, especially an emotionally and physically battered Delhomme, might misinterpret a well-meaning wisecrack as a serious slam.

Explained Smith:

"Well first, some of the people saying that I don't have confidence in Jake, or how could a real teammate or the 'real leader' quote-unquote say that, and how immature I am. I stand by what I said in ... I said that completely in jest. I am sitting next to my starting quarterback, who has been pulled out the game. I am sitting next to the backup quarterback, whose knee is being iced, his ankle ... He is feeling bad, and I come over and sit in-between them and say what I said, which was, 'I don't believe you are a good quarterback. You don't look very good and I don't really care about the performer. I care about the person.'

"You know as well as I know in this game and our job and these people that live here as football players and entertainers, our life [is] our jersey and the name on the back of that jersey, if you're fortunate enough. If you are not fortunate enough, it will change. And when it changes, those friends come and go. So as a performer, I don't really care about Jake as a performer. When I look at Jake and what I respect Jake at, is as a man, and I think that is the most important thing that you can do is respect anybody [for] who they are and not what they do."

Smith said he isn't concerned about Delhomme's candid remarks this week that he may have lost a little confidence.

"I think when you have a guy that says that, I think that is good because a lot of us men we have pride ... 'Ah no, I am alright. Don't worry about me. Don't worry about me.' When you act like nothing is wrong, and there is something wrong, you really never really get over it. But when you come out and say it, I think you help yourself get over it, because you get it off of your chest. ...

"You have to. That is the only way you move forward and you got to be accountable to [yourself]."

Carolina's Steve Smith Explains His Jake Delhomme Pep Talk originally appeared on NFL FanHouse on Sat, 19 Sep 2009 16:30:00 EST . Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Steve Smith 'Jokes' Jake Delhomme: 'I Never Really Liked You as a Quarterback'

Will Brinson — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 09:45:00 EST

Filed under: Panthers, NFL Media Watch, NFL Video, NFL Rumors, NFL Quarterbacks

Jake Delhomme's had a rough, well, nine months. Ever since he threw 42* interceptions against the Arizona Cardinals in the playoffs last year, he's been scrutinized, particularly because he signed a new monster extension (even if it was for salary cap purposes).

And then, last week, he laid a total egg against the Eagles, essentially spotting Philly 21 points en route to an embarrassing opening week loss. Turns out, while that game was going on, Steve Smith was "joking" with JakeSixPicks on the sideline, stating, "I never really liked you as a quarterback. But as a person . . . I love you as a person." Prefer video proof? Fine!

Now, obviously Smith was joking -- after all, he said it to Jake's face. But Florio makes a pretty good point ... what if he's not joking about this? That's entirely possible, right? I mean, I constantly disguise insults at people I don't care for by wrapping them in sarcasm and humor, so why can't Smith? Personally, I think he really was kidding; he's worked with Delhomme too long -- and knows the Panthers' QB situation all too well -- to bother trying to start some unwarranted in-team turmoil. It would make about as much sense as randomly punching someone in the face.

*Approximate, based on what it felt like sitting at the game

Steve Smith 'Jokes' Jake Delhomme: 'I Never Really Liked You as a Quarterback' originally appeared on NFL FanHouse on Thu, 17 Sep 2009 09:45:00 EST . Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments