|
A safe haven for our oft-neglected Mail Pouch
Cold, Hard Football Facts for November 16, 2008
Our precious Mail Pouch gets neglected so badly that one of our readers tried to drop it off at a safe haven hospital in Nebraska the other day.
We do try to respond to every email individually, even if we don't get to publish them in our Mail Pouch (which takes a surprising amount of time to put together, hence the random nature of them). This Mail Pouch features a few recent emails touching on key topics, interspersed with a few from back in October. To all those who wrote over the summer ... sorry, folks.
TROLL: You guys really are dumb as rocks. And ignorant. And arrogant. And contradictory. And homosexual. I spit on all of you. Fags. – Kenyon Edwards
CHFF: You're way off base, Kenyon. Oh, sure, your average slab of metamorphic rock, worldly and wise after all the crushing pressure it's endured through the millennia, might beat us in a debate on the symbolism of Homeric epics. But we possess far more intellectual dexterity than your docile slab of igneous. Everything else you write seems pretty accurate, though. Homo.
 TROLL: Hey Guys. Great website. I love the NFL/military facts you talk about. I am currently the First Engineer on the mighty USNS 1ST LT JACK LUMMUS, the Flagship of the USMC III Marine Expeditionary Force forward deployed in the western pacific (Guam/Saipan). We work hard on Jack everyday to uphold his great legacy. An interesting fact about Jack: he was the second to last ship ever built at Quincy Shipbuilding Division before the yard closed in 1986. I see a lot of you guys are from Quincy so that is a cold hard fact! Thanks for celebrating Jack! He is a true NFL badass and the only human to have played in the NFL and be awarded the Medal of Honor after being killed in action. – Commander Joseph Gelhaus, First Assistant Engineer, USNS 1ST LT. JACK LUMMUS
CHFF: Thanks for the note, Commander. We didn't know the USNS Jack Lummus was built here in Quincy, actually, until after writing the piece about Lt. Lummus a couple years ago (we republish it each off-season on Memorial Day and other special days).
Shipbuilding had existed in Quincy for more than 300 years before the shipyard closed in the 1980s and it made great contributions to the cause of freedom around the globe. Famous warships, including the World War II aircraft carrier the U.S.S. Lexington and the battleship U.S.S. Massachusetts, were built here. Some have said that the  famous World War II phrase, " Kilroy was here," originated with an inspector at the Quincy shipyard.
Quick history lesson: Quincy's the only city that's the home of two presidents (John Adams and John Quincy Adams). They are buried in a church across the street from Quincy High School, while the school honors these leaders by calling its sports teams the Presidents.
The most famous Declaration of Independence signatory, John Hancock, was also from Quincy. It's also the home of Charles Sweeney, the only man to fly on both atomic bomb missions (he piloted the second mission) and the home of Medal of Honor winner William R. Caddy who – like Lummus – earned the nation's highest honor for actions that led to his own death on Iwo Jima. Lummus led assaults on enemy positions even after suffering mortal wounds, while Caddy jumped on a grenade, saving the lives of two of his comrades.
TROLL: So, you guys don't write about the college game at all? That's a pity... it would be fun and expand your market a bit. Let me know if you're looking for anyone to write about NCAA football. – Dan Styklunas
CHFF: We touch on college ball whenever possible and hope to expand our market there as our resources grow. We know there's a huge market out there. We were inundated with visitors from SEC country this season when we wrote about ESPN's constant fellatio of USC. We think the story appeared on every blog in the SEC. So we definitely know that there's a market out there.
TROLL: Any chance that y'all will start covering college ball? The NFL is cool, but I would pay a monthly fee of $10 to visit CHFF if you provided the same level of information and insight for NCAA football. Just thought I would ask. Keep up the excellent work. – Jacob Amos
CHFF: Hey Jacob, we absolutely want to do more with college football. In fact, college ball is far more interesting than what's a pretty vanilla pro game ... not to mention the fact that the stadiums are bigger, the fans are more passionate, the tradition is better and the crowd is filled with much hotter chickitas.
Right now it's just a resource issue. But we definitely want to do more in the college world. If you know of any college bloggers and writers we should have our eyes on as contributors, let us know.
In the meantime, your $10 is best utilized broken into singles and redistributed to the needy young working girls at your local nudie bar.
CHFF: You know, the reaction to Panty Dancing Wednesdays was mixed at best. The most common reaction was, "Hey, I can get stuff like that anywhere. I expect something different here." We kind of dug it as a bit of fairly innocent titillation (from the Latin, tit, meaning mammary-licious). But it didn't really seem to do much to boost traffic or anything. If there's a ground swell for it, we'll put it back. But nobody seemed to care much that we more or less faded it out. However, just for you and for old time's sake, here's our all-time favorite Panty Dancing video:
CHFF: Hey Eddie. We kind of just add recipes here and there when we find some good ones and have some time to add them. We literally have hundreds to add, but don't get around to it much during the season. We just added recipes from Aerosmith rocker Joe Perry the other day. With the help of our pal, Cleveland Plain-Dealer football columnist Bill Livingston, we're trying to hunt down a few from former Browns star Al "Bubba" Baker, who these days owns Bubba's Q barbecue restaurant. We got plenty others kicking around that we'll add once we get the chance.
TROLL: Hi guys, I was wondering if you had ever looked into the correlation between Time-Per-Play stats and wins. I have been doing this to show a distinct advantage with NCAA teams like Navy, Georgia Tech, Army, and other teams who mostly run the ball. I calculate Time-Per-Play to show the amount of play clock/game clock that a team uses in order to show which offense was in control of the game. This is my formula:
- Time-Per-Play = Time of Possession (in seconds)/Passing Attempts + Rushing Attempts + Field Goal Attempts + Punts.
- Time-Per-Play Percentage= Time-Per-Play / Play clock (In seconds – 40 seconds for NFL and NCAA; 25 seconds for pre-2007 NCAA)
I would like to know what you guys think of the usefulness of this stat. I have only done this on a small-scale, single-game basis and not on a larger scale seasonal basis. I was wondering if my results could be duplicated by someone else. As of right now, most teams who win the TPP% stat typically win games. Those that don't can easily be explained by turnovers, missed FG's, or turnovers-on-downs. – Ben Rushing, Fort Worth, Texas
CHFF: We have not looked into this but it sounds pretty interesting, especially if it has a high correlation to victory. We know we could calculate Time Per Play using our new database, so maybe it's something we look at down the road.
TROLL: Hey guys. I love this site and spend way more time than I should, giving myself a football education that somehow I missed while younger. I have truly enjoyed reading many well written, well thought out, and truly smart ass articles. Thanks for a great site. – Friar 1776
CHFF: Thanks for the kind words. But you don't have to butter us up. We prefer a nice coat of baby oil.
TROLL: Who's the ass clown that wrote that story on SI.Com about Chad Pennington and the Dolphins  getting the best out of the Packers/Jets/Dolphins QB situation? Not once did you point out that Aaron Rodgers is out-producing that noodle arm ... with a bum shoulder. Brett is a pick machine. Green Bay wins hands down. Rodgers gets no credit. – Nic Milliman
CHFF: The ass-clown would have been our publisher, who was, you know, identified in the byline above the story. To paraphrase the immortal Jerky Boys, "Open your f**kin' eyes, jackass!"
As for the Pennington vs. Rodgers debate, the Dolphins have improved dramatically over last year, especially in the passing game – and they've improved more than any team in football on both counts. They were 31st in passing last year, but 3rd this year. Get a clue.
TROLL: If Dallas is a quality win, you guys need to get into badminton...nuff said. – David Allen
CHFF: We actually get more comments on our Quality Wins than just about anything, David, and your reaction is typical of those we receive from the more ignorant among you. We look at it like this: we judge Quality Wins merely through the irrefutable logic of the Cold, Hard Football Facts, or we can sit there and pick out which wins we think qualify as a "Quality Win" and which wins do not.
The latter method introduces the obvious limitations of human judgment. Our method draws a hard line in the sand of analysis: if a team has won more games than it's lost, than it's a Quality Team and a win against that team counts as a Quality Win. If the Cowboys drop to .500 or worse (certainly a possibility at this point) then games against them will no longer qualify as a Quality Win.
We think it's a much better method than any others that have been proposed, and has proven fairly accurate over the years.
TROLL: This has been an excellent site for my handicapping and has given me a whole perspective on how to evaluate teams on a weekly basis. Was wondering if you've ever evaluated each team's starting field position and ranked them for the season. Also, I've seen other places evaluate YPP (yards per point), but that takes into account defensive TDs, special teams TD's as actual points while not considering the yardage on those plays. Thanks. – Rick Laursen
CHFF: Hey Rick ... as far as we know, we were the first to look at points relative to the number of yards generated as a sign of efficiency. But that's only as far as we know. If there are others out there doing the same, shoot us the links.
TROLL: In regards to the Patriots article. One, this argument seems very early to make. How stupid would you look if the next several weeks, Matt Cassell or Matt Gutierrez or Kevin O'Connell leads the Patriots to 3-plus-score victories in a row. I know you like to create controversy, but by doing stupid articles like this and then being shown wrong in the next couple of weeks, you just lose a ton of credibility.
Two, the draft pot shots are stupid and unnecessary. Mayo has been the best player on their defense. Wilhite, Slater, and Guyton have been dominating on special teams. Your attack on Meriweather seems especially silly considering that he's played exceptionally well so far this season. – Nathan
CHFF: The piece said it's way too early to make judgements about the class of 2008. It stated it pretty clearly:
"The jury's still out (way out) on the Class of 2008."
One starter and a couple stand-out special teamers is hardly encouraging. They may turn into to something yet. But, like it said, the jury's still out. If we rode the fence any harder there we'd have saddle sores.
In addition, the class of 2007 was a train wreck. And 2006 was not very productive. Those are two draft classes that will hurt the team for years to come, as back to back bad drafts always do.
We'd stand by every last word of the piece.
TROLL: Can you please recommend a good NFL stat website that has unusual stats like the following?
1. Team ABC is 2 for 17 on 3rd downs with more than 10 yards-to-go
2. Team ABC has outscored its opponents in the last two minutes of every game this season
3 Quarterback ABC has completed X% of his passes in the 4th quarter
Thanks. – David Dutch
CHFF: Actually, NFL.com might be your best bet. It offers all kinds of situational stats. From our perspective, situational stats are not always completely useful. One of the basic problems with statistical football analysis, as compared with statistical baseball analysis, is the generally small quantities of data found in football. Sixteen games of data in football, for example, just don't offer the same statistical validity of 162 games of data in baseball. So it's quite possible that you can over-parse situational stats.
TROLL: In your article rating the divisions you describe the AFC North as being "...dominated by Pittsburgh year after year."
 Since the division was created in 2002, the winners have been: Pitt, Baltimore, Pitt, Cincy, Baltimore, Pitt. Does that really qualify as dominating a division year after year? – Ryan McKeon
CHFF: We were taking not just about the AFC North, but also about the old AFC Central, the predecessor to the AFC North before the realignment of 2002. And there's only way word that could describe Pittsburgh's relationship to that division over the years – and that word is dominant.
In fact, the Steelers have won 18 of 38 division titles – nearly half – since the division was created in 1970. They've also won five Super Bowls over that period. The entire division has combined for just one (ONE!) other Super Bowl championship over those years (Ravens in 2000).
That spells D-O-M-I-N-A-N-T.
And even in those six years of the AFC North, Pittsburgh has won half of three division titles (three of six), and won a Super Bowl. That's pretty damn good, Ryan.
TROLL: I like your site and am trying to use it to analyze games to make picks in a confidence pool. I have to pick all the games every week. I was trying to import your tables into excel, and set up something semi-automated, so I don't have to spend so much time every week.
I gotta tell you, the way you guys change your tables around from week to week drives me nuts! You've added or subtracted columns in some cases, which is more changes for me, but I can deal with that. The real kicker is that you change the names of the teams from week to week, and table to table! I am trying to do "lookup" statements based on the team name, and this really hoses things up. Like the Jacksonville Jaguars - in one place it's "Jax" another it's "Jacksonville," in another it's "Jaguars." I don't suppose you would consider keeping the names the same for every team and every table? Give me a break, will ya? Thanks! – Kurt Gaetano
CHFF: Thanks for the note and sorry for the problems. We introduced a new database on the back end this year that's supposed to make your life (and our life) a bit easier. But we're still working through some issues before it's perfect.
The good news long term is that our database will allow us to produce historic and searchable lists of our stats, and to publish our stats more quickly. So that's something else we're working on.
Sorry for the problems and let us know if you have any other issues. But the hope is that this will end up being a great net benefit for readers.
TROLL: For the last few years I've seen your write-ups and predictions about my beloved Eagles. While there is a part of me that is pleased to see you shower them with accolades, I too am a heartless observer of  the NFL universe and have to tell you that you CONSTANTLY overrate Andy Reid.
The fat man has some very noticeable strengths as a head coach.
- His game prep leading up to the weekend is outstanding.
- He believes in building teams from the inside out, so the team's trenches are always strong.
- He has a mustache.
His weaknesses are just as pronounced, however. Pop warner coaches manage the clock better. The verbiage of his offense is so complex that it actually forces timeouts occasionally when McNabb cant get the play relayed in time. But the most serious of his flaws will always keep him from winning against team of equal talent. He has no idea how to make in-game adjustments or vary, even slightly, from his gameplans.
He is inflexible in his playcalling and incapable of adapting to variable change. And as such, he will always be a "good" coach, but one most suited for rebuilding a bad team, and not one that is capable of outcoaching anyone on game day. – Russell the Mullet
CHFF: Well, Russell, you may prove to be right and we may prove to be wrong.
In our own defense – and remember, we picked the Eagles to win the Super Bowl – Philly is a legitimate contender in a tough division, only the Giants and Titans in the entire NFL have a greater scoring differential, and they look strong in a number of our Quality Stats, including Relativity Index.
We'd love to see your Eagles finally get that championship that's now been nearly a half-century in the making. And if the chips fall right for them, this could be the year.
TROLL: It comes to my attention that your beloved QB rating doesn't take into account QB fumbles. Why wouldn't this be akin to an INT as a deduction to the QB rating. If this is the case, it may force you to re-evaluate your ranking of Kurt Warner as one of the most under-rated QB's of all time given his tendency to fumble. He still make the list but it sounds as if your QB rating metric needs to be amended. – Evan
CHFF: Well, first thing to keep in mind is that there's no such thing as QB rating. There is only passer rating. The NFL's passer rating formula does not purport to measure a quarterback's capabilities. It measures only their passing ability. Therefore it needs to be taken into context of other factors.
With that said, we have toyed around with different formulas to take into account not only fumbles, but also running capabilities to create an overall "QB rating." We've still yet to find a perfect formula, but when we do, you'll read about it here.
With all that said, passer rating is fairly telling as it exists, even if an imperfect measure of one aspect of quarterbacking.
As it relates to Warner, he's underrated because nobody considers him one of the all time greats, yet his production is among the greatest in the history of the game. He's certainly had fumble issues. But so, too, have two HOF quarterbacks: Warren Moon is No. 1 on the all-time fumble list (161) and Brett Favre is No. 2 (155).
So Warner would hardly be the only quarterback affected by measuring fumbles – which, at the end of the day, we agree should be included in a "quarterback rating" more effective than the current "passer rating."
TROLL: Following the Patriots, I regularly hear about how their secondary is weak, isn't making plays, etc. But looking back at NFL history, I'm at a loss to find a team whose secondary was particularly important to winning championships or even steady streams of games. From following the Patriots over the years it seems to me that it's at the line of scrimmage where games are usually won and lost, that flank areas get disproportionate credit or blame for a team's performance. Has there ever been a team that won specifically because of their secondary? – Michael Daly
CHFF: Well, Michael, you fall into the trap of looking at individual units in a vacuum. And, in this case, of looking at one unit (the secondary) of a unit (the defense) in a vacuum.
Football doesn't roll that way, our friend. The truth is that pass defense is ALMOST ALWAYS critical to the success of a team. And as we've pointed out many times, if you look at the great pass defenses in history, you'll find very, very successful teams.
In fact, check out this list here of the best pass defenses ever. A lot of great teams on the list, Michael. Perhaps it's no coincidence that the best pass defense in modern NFL history belonged to the only team that's ever won three straight NFL championships games (1967 Packers). And you only have to go back to the 2002 Buccaneers to find a team that won the Super Bowl and was really good at only one thing: stopping the pass. And it was their dominant pass defense that lifted them to a blowout of the Raiders in the Super Bowl that season.
To bring it around to your Patriots, clearly the porous pass defense has been their single greatest source of trouble this year. And, as Kerry noted in a piece last month on WEEI.com, when the Patriots were at their peak as a defense, they were at their peak defensively against the pass.
Not sure whether the credit should to specifically to the secondary – but who cares? Either a team stops the pass (and usually wins) or doesn't stop the pass (and usually loses).
TROLL: Will you ever do graphs of your Quality Stats? It would be interesting to see your favorite team (in my case, the Pats) in a graph where the X axis could be weeks (1-17) and the Y axis could be Bendability Index. You could see them trend through the year as they got better or worse! Thank you. P.S. This website is my first resource for good statistical analysis! -Mark Davidson
TROLL: I know you already do the work for us in the your weekly picks but I think you could gain more hits if each week you provided a chart breaking out the quality stats opponent versus opponent. Of course, if you go the extra step and comment on it we would all appreciate it, but I believe we would all greatly appreciate simply seeing the stats lined up next to each for a weekly comparison.
Thanks. Great website. It won't be long until your stats become mainstream comments during the broadcasts. – John Griffin
TROLL: I enjoy the Quality Standings, but am troubled by something. I agree that beating good teams is an important indicator of success. However, this measure seems to ignore something just as important: how do you fare against teams you "should" beat. If beating good teams is important, isn't beating bad teams – or conversely NOT LOSING to them – just as important? Especially in a league with a single elimination championship tournament.
How about tracking Inferiority Standings? Standings based on how teams fared against sub-.500 competition. I'd be especially eager to see how those standings compare to the quality standings and to the regular league tables. – Adam Diomedo
CHFF: Thanks for the kind words, guys.
There are so many ways to present a stats that would be useful, that we've only just begun to scratch the surface. It's really just a matter of improving our technology. We remain at this time sort of a Gutenberg website – still using primitive technology. When Kerry started the site a few years ago, it was really just a blog and we had no idea where it would take us.
We never realized the reaction we'd get from sports fans or the sports media, or anticipated that we'd be working with the likes of SportsIllustrated.com or WEEI.com, and we and didn't plan on becoming the statistical resource we've become for many fans.
So the next step in our evolution is to build up the technology and make our stats much more interactive and useful for fans. We've already begun the process with a new database being used to calculate our stats this year that will allow us to do a lot more empirical analysis in the years ahead.
As for the mainstream nature of our stats, it's obvious in broadcasts and reports on the web and in print that passing YPA, for example, is becoming used more widely as an indicator of success. Obviously, we didn't invent the stat, but we really started pushing its importance. We know that thousands of football writers and reporters read our stuff and turn to us for cutting-edge analysis, so we think we've had an impact in this area.
Finally, as for the comment on Inferiority Standings, it's interesting and maybe something we could look at in the future. But from our perspective in the past, the answer is, "who cares?" You're not going to face lousy teams in the playoffs, so who cares how you do against these sad sacks?
The theory behind our Quality Standings is that how you perform against good teams is really more important than how you perform against poor teams. Seems like a sound theory.
TROLL: So I was thinking: The Scoreability Index's concept of efficiency measurement can be applied to a quarterback. I should bust out calc.exe and m-m-m-make it so – career passing yards divided by touchdowns thrown. Simple enough, right? See how many yards it takes for a touchdown. Why not!
Here's what I found for the most efficient QBs (among the big-name QBs) – those who needed the fewest yards to throw a TD pass:
- Terry Bradshaw - 132.02
- Tom Brady - 134.24
- Peyton Manning - 137.44
- Steve Young - 142.77
- Dan Marino - 146.09
- Joe Montana - 148.53
This stat doesn't put Brady in first, so I had to figure out what was wrong with it. Obviously, quarterbacks throw interceptions, too, and this should be accounted for. So, same formula but with interceptions:
- Young: 309.57
- Brady: 307.51
- Montana: 291.73
- Manning: 269.73
- Marino: 243.49
- Bradshaw: 133.28
It just made sense at this point to subtract the little number from the big one.
- Brady: 173.27
- Young: 166.8
- Montana: 143.2
- Peyton Manning: 132.29
- Marino: 97.4
- Roethlisberger: 86.98
- Favre: 74.35
- Michael vick: 59.21
- Eli manning: 37.57
- Bradshaw: 1.26 (ouch)
I like what I see from this formula. Tell me what you think! – Chris
CHFF: Looks like you worked hard to get Brady on top. With that said, your list is actually quite telling ... or, at the very least, it confirms several things we already knew. For example, Terry Bradshaw was a big-armed gunslinger, as prone to big mistakes as he was gamebreaking big TD throws. We also knew Brady, Young, Montana and Manning were super efficient, as evidenced by their standing as at the very top of the all-time passer rating lists.
It would be interesting to see how your list looked, though, after a more comprehensive review of all quarterbacks, and not just what looks like a selected few. For example, we don't see any Kurt Warner on the list.
TROLL: Where is the coverage of the worst commissioner in the history of the league! Roger Goodell is the biggest tool to hit pro football since ... forever. He is single-handedly ruining the game. And not so much as a belch from youse guys. I guess I had you confused with someone who gave a damn. Disappointed - Brett Dimaio
CHFF: We've written a lot of Goodell, even dubbing him as the "Gridiron Godfather" for the iron-fisted way in which he rules the league, not afraid to whack anyone who stands in his way. But it looks like we disagree with your assessment of him. It seems he's done a fairly good job at this point.
TROLL: "Signature moment - Ben vs. Eli" – You didn't mention the tackle? I'm not saying it's equal to slaying the dragon like Eli did, but you could have at least mentioned it.
 In case you don't know what I mean: The Steelers were up 21-18 against a Colts team that seemed to have a few refs on payroll. There was like a minute twenty left. Bettis from the two should have been a sure thing, I mean, he hadn't fumbled all season. Instead we get Nick Harper returning a 97 yard recovery for the win unless Big Ben makes the stop. Big Ben deserves credit for his part in that. – Jay Hunter
TROLL: Great site and great analysis of Eli versus Big Ben. You might want to check this out regarding Ben's signature moments. -- Craig Henry
CHFF: We're fully aware of the play in question. It's because of plays like that tackles against the Colts we've consistently declared Big Ben a winner and a great QB, and when it hasn't been popular to make that claim. But we think it's fair to say that Eli's signature moment – the greatest drive in NFL history – was a more impressive signature moment. In fact, the greatness of the drive is only highlighted and made more amazing when you consider that Big Ben's greatest moment came on defense.
TROLL: Hi Kerry. I read your column on WEEI.com about Belichick vs. Brady last month with great interest. I agree with many points you make but also feel it is a bit unfair to place so much blame squarely  on Bill. He's had a great run since 2001. Tom has been instrumental to the success but Bill has also been able to put together great defensenses up until this year / last.
Last, Maroney is a bust. Jackson stinks. But the 2007 draft was not a bust at all. Remember, we traded for Randy Moss and Wes Welker. – Murphy Colin
CHFF: Well, the Belichick vs. Brady debate isn't closed yet, but the rise of Matt Cassel in recent weeks (the article was published about four weeks ago) really swings the pendulum of pigskin the favor of Belichick.
As for the poor draft of 2007, Murph, the acquisitions of Moss and Welker don't change the fact that the players actually taken in the draft were nothing short of a disaster. The still had plenty of picks that year, but missed on everyone but No. 1 pick Brandon Meriweather.
AS Kerry mentioned on WEEI recently, when you continually draft poorly, it has a direct impact on your fortunes on the field. The decline of New England's defense since 2003, for example, is a direct result of poor draft. Jerod Mayo, a No. 1 pick in the 2008 draft, looks like the real deal. But you have to go all the way back to Vince Wilfork, a No. 1 pick in 2004, to find the last time the Patriots drafted an impact player on defense.
Those are three straight wasted drafts in which the Patriots did not acquire a single impact player on defense in the draft.
TROLL: You guys are among the very few who have any f*cking clue about what goes on INSIDE and OUTSIDE the numbers. And that's a beautiful thing when you're talking/communicating to other very well-informed fans.
I just got done reading your latest piece on one Big Ben Roethlisberger. I've been beating this drum for five years and the kid never gets his proper due because of the love affair of the Mannings, Favre ,Brady – and yes even going into this year – Carson f*cking Palmer.
Anyway I'm very much a student of the game and you cite yards-per-pass attempt as one of the most critical issues when evaluating QB play. The other stat that Ive found goes hand-in-hand with that is SACKS REGISTERED AND SACKS ALLOWED.
The numbers come in at about a 90 percent win-rate. Win the yards-per-pass attempt and sacks for/against you're winning at an exceptional rate. – James Linder
CHFF: Hey James, sounds like we're on the same page with Roethlisberger ... but clearly this year, especially in the weeks since we wrote that piece, is not shaping up as a great one for Big Ben. The porous offensive line, bad decision making and incredible number of sacks he's taken have really impacted his performance this season.
|
