Hey, folks: There are no excuses for our inability to get the Mail Pouch published in a timely manner. It's just one of those things that keeps slipping through the cracks. We have a small crew and turn out a ton of material, and this is one of the things we don't get to as often as we should. We do get a lot of mail (and many of you are serial e-mailers), and we do try to respond to each one individually as they arrive.

In any case, here are a smattering of e-mails, mostly from the past few weeks, that we think touch on many of the major topics we've discussed recently. It is, as always, more informative than most columns you get from mainstream sportswriters, more combative than an Israeli-Palestinian checkpoint and more tasteless than a dinner of cardboard and water.

I love your stats, site, and attitude. But Grady Jackson no longer plays for the Packers. Tepid 20 dated 11.14.06 has him as a Packer. What point were you trying to make? – Tom

 

CHFF: Got a lot of e-mails about this. We think the point we were trying to make is that we f*cked up. Thanks for pointing it out. There will be a group flogging at the CHFF headquarters today. We had some great data on Greg Jennings that was added after the flogging. We are your embarrassed pigskin servant ... the Cold, Hard Football Facts.

 

Bi-locating is a good trick if you are up to it; note that Grady Jackson went to the Atlanta Falcons months ago. – Ann, a New Hampshire Packers fan

 

CHFF: It was a pretty glaring error. It's since been changed. Can we make it up to you with a bratwurst? A beer? How about a backrub? And, any time you want to bi-locate, we're all over it ... and maybe even you. Swinging is our bag.

 

Beer and brats are great; I don't think the backrub would be a good idea. And if you saw me in person, you would agree, dumpy middle-aged matron that I am. – Ann, a New Hampshire Packers fan

 

CHFF: Yeah, sounds like you're out of our league.

 

 

CHFF: Note to self: Don't piss off windsurfing fans. Not sure what you're talking about, really. We don't remember singling out John Kerry anywhere. But we take shots at everyone – especially ourselves. But maybe you haven't noticed. Sorry to hear some people are off-limits in your eyes. But that's your f**kin' problem, not ours. We'll continue to slaughter all the sacred cows. Even the Nantucket windsurfing set.

 

I just visited your website today for the first time. Finally there is a website with writers who know what they are talking about. The article on Mr. Marino was on point. I really haven't been able to do the research, but are Peyton Manning's playoff stats heading down the same path of Marino's? This is my new favorite website. So keep up the good work. – SSGT Darrell Gunter, USMC, Okinawa, Japan

CHFF: Hey, Sergeant, it's nice to hear from the USMC on the eve of its 231st birthday. Manning is actually much worse in the playoffs than Marino. In fact, Marino simply struggled in the postseason. But Manning has played his single worst statistical game of the season four times in his six playoff appearances. He would be five for six, if the refs hadn't overturned that INT by Troy Polamalu of Pittsburgh in last year's Steelers-Colts game. The NFL, of course, later admitted that it was a mistake.

 

By the way, we want every Marine to know that we are BIG supporters of the U.S. military and the Corps. These stories below would appeal to any Marine. Feel free to spread the word, and we'll continue to honor the Corps.

Kerry Byrne's article on Peyton Manning was going fine until he put in the bit about the "$10 Thai whore" and "...pulled up his pants..."  That whole part was sickening. I don't think football or Peyton need to be brought so low as with a comparison with degradation of women, nationalities, Third World countries, etc. Is Kerry really this sick, or did he get carried away, or what? He owes everybody, and especially Peyton – who had a tremendous game – a real apology.

 

CHFF: You must be new around here.

 

Just wondering if you got my message about your server upgrade not actually happening until you update your dns server names at the registrar? – Tony at LiquidWeb.com

 

CHFF: No. You guys suck. It's like beating your head against the wall trying to deal with you folks simply to get a server upgrade. First you fuck with us with the mysterious "traffic" problem in which you suddenly can't track our visitors' traffic each day. Then you suggest we solve this problem by upgrading. And then you're completely non-responsive to hundreds of phone calls about the upgrade. Nice work. We'll recommend you highly to all our friends: "Try Liquid Web. They're not complete fuck-ups."

 

The reason the "Quality Stats" suck is because those stats take into account all the games a team plays, even those played against bad teams. That's like picking the team with the best overall record to win the game. You've lost sight of the Quality Opponent concept that you pioneered so brilliantly before you all became famous football divas. I don't think anyone should give a rat's ass about how many spots their team's Bendability Index rank shot up after playing Oakland. Find a way to incorporate the quality of a team's opposition into your Quality Stats or you might look in the mirror some day and see Pete Prisco's face staring back at ya! – Gene Guth

CHFF: You know how to hurt a man, don'tcha? Seriously, we'd love to create a whole section of stats based solely upon how teams perform against quality opponents. It's on our short list of improvements ... right after stomach stapling for the entire crew.

 

This may be one of the most irrelevant questions you've received but I will ask anyway. I have often wondered about this possibility and Tom Brady actually proved it a couple games ago. What are yardage records for a single drive? I realize it's a 100-yard field, with 99 yards being the biggest possible play, but with penalties some odd and possibly neat facts have to be out there. In Tom Brady's case, it was something like 80 yards passing on a 70-yard drive. So I have always wondered if anyone has had over 100 yards - run/pass/receive on one given drive. It's odd, everyone I've asked has walked away but come back later saying "hmm that is a decent thought." I've tried the 'net and have no way of knowing how to contact Elias. Any help would be cool and thanks in advance. If my doorbell rings and I get a Matt Millen type backhand from someone, I'll realize this was not a very good question. Thanks in advance. – Tom D.

 

CHFF: You remind us of something our momma used to tell us when we were budding little trolls: "There are no stupid questions. Only stupid little boys." With that said, we don't have the answer. However, you're right: With penalties, it's quite possible that a player could actually pass (or run) for more than 100 yards on a single drive. We believe the case you mention was Brady's opening drive against Minnesota a few weeks ago. It was an 80-yard drive, but we believe he passed for 94 yards in the series.

 

Damn that Lew Bryson! Tellin' the truth till it hurts! "Time Yourself in the 40" is his best piece this year!! Discrimination exists where we least expect it, and Lew lays it wide open like a freakin' chest wound for all the hypocrites to see. Drink what you want, drink what you like, drink what you can afford. All God's children want a buzz, and I'm drinking a 16-ounce Straub returnable bottle from St. Marys, PA, 15 bucks a case, right now! They'll come after me next. GOTTA LOVE IT!! – Sam

 

CHFF: Gotta love the 40. Any man so proud of his beer that he wraps it lovingly in a brown paper bag, screaming for attention in the process, is a-OK in our book.

 

Whoa, there big fellas. There is something wrong with your list of winningest coach/QBs combos. I don't know what, but it ain't right. Coryell and Fouts? Where the heck are they? Montana-Walsh? No way. All the long-lasting coaches should be on there. Hummmmmm ... nope. – name deleted by accident

 

CHFF: That list of winningest coaches was based upon winning percentage, not total victories. We usually create all our own lists and do all our own research. But that list was published by the NFL itself. We got it from their media site, NFLMedia.com. We trust their accuracy. To address your question specifically, Coryell and Fouts were together for about 8½ seasons and won around 60 games. They don't quite meet the standards of great combinations. Hell, Belichick and Brady have already won 75 games together in 5½ seasons, and they're not even the top active partnership. That honor belongs, as we reported in the story, to Dungy and Manning. As for Montana and Walsh ... Montana was the No. 1 guy under Walsh for only 8-plus seasons, too. It only seems like they were together forever.

 

I can log on to the Football Forum, but not post comments. What's wrong? You need my valuable insights. – name deleted

 

CHFF: Send us your screen name and we'll take care of it manually. We do apologize for the problem and inconvenience. Of course, we set low expectations for ourselves and still always seem to underachieve. It's a gift, really.

 

The Athlon Pro Football annual reported that last year, the Patriots broke their 2003 record of different starters used by a divisional winner. It 2005, they used 45 starters; in 2003 it was 42. Only the 49ers and Cardinals had more, 47, and they went 9-23 combined.  Where can I get this statistic on a progressive weekly basis? – Walter Antoniotti

 

CHFF: Sorry. Not sure where that type of info can be found. We've seen individual numbers, but never anything that tracks the number of starters from week to week. But apparently, there are bigger losers than us tracking this stuff.

I just wanted you guys to know that your Brady vs. Manning: Complete & Unabridged, Vol. II gave me a little woodie. – KC

 

CHFF: Our small staff was dismayed to hear about your little woodie.

 

Just one quick question guys...Wouldn't Dallas beating 4-3 Carolina count as a Quality Win? – name deleted

 

CHFF: No. Carolina fell to 4-4 with the loss. They no longer qualified as a quality team at that point.

 

Sorry if I don't understand your math with saying that Bledsoe is not a hall of famer and Warren Moon was only borderline. Mr. Byrne, perhaps if you suited up for a game and played on the professional level you'd know football. I do apologize but with Moon it seems you're only saying offensive linemen do not matter. In that respect your comments are biased and thereby are easily thrown away. I apologize that you have to fault everyone although it probably doesn't appear you'll learn anything from this.  – Joseph Zeihm

 

CHFF: Flipping through the Pro Football Register ... still flipping ... still flipping ... ssstttiiiiilllll flipping ... on to the Z's. Hmm, that's funny. Don't see "Joseph Zeihm" anywhere. Maybe you can question us after you suited up at the pro level. Or maybe you should first publish a web site before you have the credentials to question our all-knowing authority. Donkey. For the record, we made an unassailable statistical argument in that piece. If you got some evidence we should have considered but did not, let's see it. Otherwise, it was a perfect argument: We compiled all the data on Bledsoe and compared it to the data on Hall of Fame QBs. We then drew our conclusions based solely upon the evidence provided by the Cold, Hard Football Facts. And the evidence told us that he clearly does not stack up to Hall of Fame QBs. Like we said, if you've got some evidence that he does, let's see it. Otherwise, sit at the back of the class and shut your piehole until you have something intelligent to offer.

 

Is there a stat available for Bledsoe's record vs. winning teams (over .500)? I thought I saw it once and it was .350 or thereabouts. Big fan of the site, keep up the good work. – Mark Connolly

 

CHFF: We don't have that number. We did at one time but can't find it right now. In any case, .350 may be accurate. It's definitely well, well below .500.

 

First of all, is Aikman in the Hall for any other reason than being on a great team and winning 3 Super Bowls? Is Tom Brady on the future HOFer list for any other reason than being on a great team that won 3 Super Bowls? Brady's career numbers are good, but not great at this point. I understand that he hasn't played for a very long time. But that is the reason he shouldn't be on the list. I am not saying he will not be worthy when he retires. But right now, he is not in that class regardless of how many rings he has. – David Plunk

 

CHFF: Aikman was BRILLIANT in the playoffs and especially in Super Bowls, as we presented for one and all to admire and worship in our "Bloodbath of data" before Super Bowl XL. In fact, Aikman owns the SB record for completion percentage (70.0). Brady has also been brilliant in the postseason. You can thank his record-low INT percentage and his numerous clutch performances. These guys were both transcendent big-game performers. They may have been on great teams, but the key aspect of any great team is a great QB. You simply don't win consistently in the NFL without great play at QB. And Dallas of the 1990s and New England of the 21st century each won consistently.

 

CHFF: Well, you kind of touched on it yourself – that KC defense sucked. As we said in the piece, we took into consideration a number of different factors when rating Manning's greatest games: the stakes, the quality of the opponents, the raw production. Clearly, the stakes were higher in the playoff game against KC. But the performance relative to the quality of the opposing defense was much greater in the win over Denver this season. And, yes, KC is a tough place to play. The Chiefs had a .713 winning percentage at home over the past 10 years heading into this season (57-23). But that put them merely in a tie for fourth-best home record in football over that period. Denver was No. 1, with a 64-16 (.800) mark over those 10 years.

 

Then I average out adjusted points to get a single number that can help compare teams' defenses. If you want, I can send you an MS Excel spreadsheet with sample data (Patriots, Broncos and Bears defenses from Week 3 to current) to show you how it works. Keep up the great work! – Hard-Boiled Dave

 

CHFF: Sounds interesting. In fact, it sounds like it accomplishes many of the same things that our Bendability Index does. We think our metric is infinitely easier to compute and comprehend. However, one of the features we're looking to add to the site is a section for people to add their own statistics. We get a lot of material like this, and think it would be a great way to tap into the truly shut-in, stat-crunching data of our readers.

 

Can you guys please update "Brady vs. Manning: Complete & Unabridged" to include everything that's happened since 2004? Can you also update your stats on a QB "standard deviation"? Thanks. BTW, great site. – Brian

 

CHFF: Hey, Brian. Thanks for the kind words. Apparently, you have bad taste. With that said, the most recent update to our opus, "The Complete & Unabridged Guide to Why Tom Brady is Better than Peyton Manning," appeared here before the Indy-New England game earlier in November. We added some pretty interesting new comparisons, but did not update all the data that appeared in Vol. 1 and Vol. 2. We're saving the updated data for the Cold, Hard Football Facts book which, with a little luck, will be out before the 2007 season.

 

Fellas, I was wondering if you were interested in writing your own article about the 10 most revolutionary defensive players for the game of football.  I'm sure you're familiar with Sports Illustrated. They recently produced their top 10 in the category. However, I was completely unimpressed, and one of the 10 included Brian Urlacher (who has only been noticeable for 3 or 4 seasons). I feel you could contribute an article 200 times better, with stats to back up your facts, and some great insight. Just a suggestion because I think it would be a great read for any real football fan. – Jamie Sinnott

 

CHFF: Thanks for the vote of confidence. It's high praise saying we can do a better job than the folks at Sports Illustrated. If our friends, teachers and parents had that kind of faith in us, we might actually be contributing to society in some way, shape or form rather than sitting here in our skidmark-stained underwear.

 

With that said, we did not see the list, but we'll check it out. We should add that SI is one publication we believe really does a great job. It's not all about star culture with them. It's about getting inside the athlete and the event. In that respect, they have no peer, though we pretty much can kick ass on anybody out there when it comes to analyzing football. Still, we count Peter King and Paul Zimmerman among the best at their craft. (However, King did recently use some of our data at halftime of a Notre Dame game without crediting us. We know he got it from us because it was discussed with him on sports radio in Boston the day before, with credit given to us ... but that's another story).

 

In any case, a lot of this would depend on how they define "revolutionary." But you'd be hard-pressed to find Urlacher on any Top 10 list of great defenders that we'd put together. He's a spectacular player and leads what is consistently one of the great defenses in football. But he may not even be the best defender on his own team. That honor may belong to Lance Briggs. Also, there have been a lot of great and "revolutionary" defenders in the 87-season history of the NFL. We'll take a look and see if we have a different take on it. Thanks for the idea.

 

Dear Trolls: I do not feel that the Bendability Index should utilize TDs given up by opposing offenses or by special teams. This is a stat that is supposed to represent the strength of the defense, therefore they should not be penalized for failings on the offensive side of the ball, and similarly, for the Scoreability Index, the offense should not get credit for the strength or success of the defense if they score TDs. – Chris White

CHFF: Wrong! Wrong! Wrong! There seems to be a lot of confusion over what the Bendability and Scoreability Indexes represent, and we get a lot of e-mail about them. Our Quality Stats home page is pretty clear about it but apparently it bears repeating:

 

"The Bendability Index IS NOT purely a defensive yardstick. Repeat: It is not a measure solely of a team's defense! It is, instead, a great barometer of team success. It is a function of many team-wide factors, including general defensive strength, offense and special teams proficiency, turnover differential and Red Zone defense, all of which have a direct impact on a team's ability to keep opponents out of the end zone."

 

We think it's a great way to measure overall team effectiveness at keeping opponents out of the end zone. After all, the scoreboard doesn't care who scored the points. It only cares if points were scored. Our indexes take every single team-wide factor into account and present them in a very easy-to-use number. A team whose offense turns the ball over all the time is going to find it harder to keep opponents off the scoreboard, and that's going to inhibit their ability to win the game. Our Quality Stats are concerned only with wins and losses ... not with if a certain unit of a team is unfairly penalized when another unit plays poorly. It's a team game, and all the parts of the team are intricately intertwined. That's what we try to measure.

 

I noticed in your Bendabilty Index that you have the Patriots down as allowing 17 points (in the Week One loss to Buffalo) when in reality the defense only gave up 10 points. A mistake by the offense shouldn't be blamed on the defense. – David Hamilton

 

CHFF: See above. It's a TEAM game, folks! Who cares if one unit gets credit over the other? That's a fantasy football mentality. Here on Planet Pigskin, we only care about who wins and who loses. People must get over the "blame game" mentality.

 

If you read about the Bendability Index, you'll see that we state repeatedly that it is not purely a defensive statistic. Football, in our estimation, is a game of many intertwined parts, and every part effects the other. The Bendability Index instead measures a team's overall effectiveness at keeping opponents out of the end zone. We state in our stories about it that it takes into consideration special teams effectiveness, red zone defense capabilities and turnover differential.

 

 

CHFF: Guess we're having trouble getting across the whole point of the Bendability and Scoreability Indexes. It's not like it's written plainly above the index chart each week or anything ...

 

On to the next order of business: the insanity of wide receivers and tight ends. I have a hypothesis as to why wide receivers are insane. I believe it's a simple matter of them trying to rationalize their relatively small role in the grand scheme of things. It only makes sense that in order to balance the knowledge that they don't really matter, they have an inflated sense of self-importance. I'm no psychologist, but this makes sense to me. At least it's a beginning to understanding the creature that is the prima donna wide receiver/tight end. – Matt Tinney

 

CHFF: You know, we've thought of just attaching the Quality Stats spreadsheets so that people can sort them. In fact, it would take one second to do it ... We're not quite advanced enough yet to provide sortable HTML pages like NFL.com, etc. But we have cool, unique stats, and we want people to be able to sort them. So maybe we'll just add those spreadsheets in addition to the hard charts in the near future.

 

As for receivers, your theory makes as much sense as any other we've heard. Really, if you only caught the ball five times a game – a decent 80-catch season – you'd probably need a little more love, too. 

 

 

CHFF: The Cold, Hard Football Facts are morally outraged by any field that's not grass or dirt. The fact that New England felt compelled to change its surface midseason is an affront to the Gridiron Gods and a sign that they're not quite as confident as they have been in past seasons. The fact that Brady ripped up Minnesota on FieldTurf a couple weeks ago and then played poorly on grass in back-to-back home losses certainly expedited the decision. With that said, if New England goes on some sort of late-season surge, we may all look back on this as a "genius" move by the NE brain trust.

 

Still a pussy move, though.

 

Thought you'd like to see this: When asked if Michael Vick would ever be a consistent passer, Joe Theismann had this nugget of wisdom: "Vick can be a consistent passer in this league, and he's proven that in small doses." Hope you're not too drunk to see the irony in that statement, but then again, it probably wasn't even the dumbest thing he's said this week. (I TiVo'd the MNF game so I wouldn't be subjected to his idiocy.)

 

CHFF: The Chief Troll is actually quite fond of Joe Theismann, the quarterback. He played for two of his favorite teams (Notre Dame and the Redskins) and led what was, at the time, the most prolific offense in the history of the NFL: The 1983 Redskins scored 541 points. He's also from New Brunswick, N.J., the town that gave football one of its signature moments of 2006. With that said, he did seem to miss the irony of his own statement. It was a sad moment when the famous troika of Maguire-Theismann-Patrick was deconstructed before the 2006 season. Now Maguire and Theismann have to offer their observations of the obvious in a vacuum. We're all lesser people for it.

 

I submit that, if you were to correct for the effects of volatility (perhaps by calculating the number of standard deviations by which an individual passer exceeded the league average), your final list would be a completely different and more accurate representation of the best passing years of all time. – Jason W. Solinsky

 

CHFF: We did a little look at standard deviation for QB ratings last year, and thought we might do more with it. The problem, though, is that most football fans see "standard deviation" and just roll their eyes up in their heads.

 

One of our goals is to analyze stats and put them in context, but do it in a way that's easy for most people to comprehend. Some sites go overboard on the formulaic side. We think what the myth-breaking work of staggering genius did fairly well was put things into the context of their time and did it in an easy-to-understand way.

 

No matter how you break down the numbers, it doesn't change the fact that it was much more difficult to pass the ball in the mid 1970s than it is in the 2000s. In turn, this means that a 100 rating in 1976 was far more impressive than a 100 rating in 2005.

 

That's what we tried to show – and did show successfully. There's a reason why 19 of the top 20 passer ratings of all time belong to QBs who played in the 1990s or later. It's not because they're necessarily better QBs or better passers. It's because it's easier to pass.

 

 

CHFF: Well, you make the No. 1 flawed assumption about the rating system. It is not a "quarterback rating." It is simply a "passer rating." The NFL is very clear about this, and so are we. Many people refuse to accept the difference, but there is very clearly a difference. The passer rating system merely purports to measure a player's ability to pass the football. Yes, it's a vital component of a quarterback's skills, perhaps the biggest. But not the only one. While we agree that it doesn't matter how a player gets the ball downfield, whether by running or passing, the intent of the "passer" rating system is merely to measure passing ability. That's why, as we have noted on numerous occasions, there is a difference between great passers and great quarterbacks: A passer gets stats, a QB gets results. Some people look at big passing numbers and conclude that the player who posted those numbers most be a great quarterback. No. Those numbers only tell us that said player was a great passer.

 

With all that said, there is clearly a need for a better system, and your system is as good as any we've seen for rating quarterbacks.

 

Where can I find information such as, which university produces the most pro athletes? What state or high school??? – Keith Autele

 

CHFF: We don't have the information for states or high schools that produce the most pro athletes. But, looking at it purely from a football perspective, the Sporting News publishes an indispensable draft guide each year ("Complete Pro Football Draft Encyclopedia") that tells which schools have produced the most NFL draft picks. Notre Dame (448 picks entering 2006 draft) and USC (421 picks) rank No. 1 and No. 2 all-time.

 

And for pure athletic talent, I would further submit Jim Thorpe, whose reputation precedes him as unarguably one of the premier athletes of the 20th century. Please note, despite unarguable football ability, I have not submitted O.J. Simpson, due to character concerns despite his acquittal. Lastly, as an alumni of the University of Michigan, I would note that your selection of a home field (Ohio State) is at best regrettable. While its location is an undeniable point, your determination of it being the only field in the area with appropriate seating capacity is erroneous. As an aside, I enjoy your site very much, and please keep up the good work. – Joshua D. Luskin

 

CHFF: All would be fine additions, but you can only have 11 men on an All-Time 11 and we excluded plenty of amazing players. Thorpe did not make our team because we limited our team to NFL players, and he played pro football before the creation of the NFL in 1920 (though he was the league's first commissioner). We've written about Crazy Legs Hirsch quite a bit in numerous looks back at the great Rams teams of the 1950s which, by the way, include the highest scoring offense in NFL history.

 

Let's add Gino Cappelletti.  He mostly played WR and K.  At one point in his career, he played DB, returned punts and kickoffs. – Peter Bertoni

 

I'll take John Hanhah (pictured here) anywhere. – Virginio Pereira

 

Either way, I think it wouldn't be as dominant as you wished: you see, they are all great players, but they just can't match the physical level of today's stars. the only one on the rooster who can come close is Deion, but the rest are just a step slower, smaller, weaker. Cal Hubbard is tough, but he just can't block, let's say, Dwight Freeney or Michael Strahan. He'd be overpowered, even though he's great. – Carlos Augusto Pessoa de Brum

 

CHFF: We don't think 11 roosters would be any kind of match for our All-Time 11. Oh, sure, maybe 11 Road Runners or something. But your everyday run-of-the mill rooster would get killed.

 

As for the comparison of players from different eras, it's an irrelevant and useless argument. The players of today, had they lived 50, 60 years ago, would have been subject to the inferior dietary, medical and training standards of the era. In other words, today's players would have been smaller, slower and weaker back in the day. They probably would have played football part-time, too, and found other pursuits in the offseason, as almost all players did back in the day. Conversely, if Cal Hubbard came out of college in 2001, he would have benefited from modern standards of diet, medicine and training. He also would have had an opportunity to devote himself to football full-time. You wonder what kind of behemoth he might have been given those advantages today.