Peter King: Common denominator among five bad NFL teams...

[DaWolf]

MMQB Mail: Common denominator among five bad NFL teams

Seems to me we have nine bad teams in football right now. For all of you in Buffalo, Chicago and Seattle who want me to include your team in this grouping, sorry. You've show too many signs of life to make the Bottom Nine.

The worst teams fall into three categories. Separating the badness:

The Blow It Up And Start Over Division: Tampa Bay (0-7), St. Louis (0-7), Cleveland (1-6), Kansas City (1-6), Detroit (1-5).

It All Starts With The Quarterback Division: Oakland (2-5), Washington (2-5), Carolina (2-4).

They Never Should Have Drafted Vince Young Division: Tennessee (0-6).

The last four teams have quarterback problems that will keep them down until solved. JaMarcus Russell is a disaster; we don't need to see any more of him to know his pocket presence and awareness are horrible and his accuracy just as bad. Jason Campbell far too often looks for the easy checkdown than for the open throw downfield, and watching the first half of the Monday nighter, I'm convinced his pocket awareness, too, is severely flawed. In Carolina, John Fox has to be wondering if Jake Delhomme is Steve Sax. I know I am. In Tennessee, Jeff Fisher has to see if Vince Young has a chance; there is no sense playing Kerry Collins now. But I have little faith that Young will work there, and the Titans must not either, based on Fisher's unwillingness to play him significant minutes.

But the five teams in the Blow It Up Division have three things in common. If I'm the owner of any of them, I think it's foolish to think anything but stay the course and let's evaluate everything after the season. The only place among the five that I think has even a small chance of getting blown up in-season is Cleveland. But that shouldn't be judged until January.

The common denominators among the Bucs, Rams, Browns, Chiefs and Lions:

1. (Mostly) New front offices trying to change the culture. All but St. Louis have new general managers, and with the Rams, new coach Steve Spagnuolo and COO Kevin Demoff have joined willing agent-of-change GM Bill Devaney in changing everything about the organization. The Bucs had the fifth-oldest team in football last year; now they're the third-youngest. Eric Mangini and George Kokinis would change everything about the Browns (I think including the nickname) if they could; that's how far gone they think they found this organization. Scott Pioli was given a free hand to reconstruct the Chiefs in his vision from the ground, and he's in the 10th month of probably a three-year building job doing that. In Detroit, Martin Mayhew (even though he's a Matt Millen leftover) has already shown his smarts by getting first-, third- and fifth-round picks for perennial underachiever Roy Willams, and he's found a willing partner for change in new-thinking Jim Schwartz. I think Mayhew deserves to be judged on his own.

2. Coaches trying to establish newness takes a while. Ask the Chiefs about the four-and-a-half-hour practice days (two sessions) in training camp of Todd Haley compared to the much-softer hand of Herman Edwards. Haley will now be tested by this Larry Johnson Twitter criticism. At Tampa, Raheem Morris probably got his job a year too soon, but the Bucs were worried about losing him to another team in 2010. In Detroit, Schwartz changed the weight room to almost all free weights to build strength for a team he thought got pushed around too much. Romeo Crennel was the benevolent uncle in Cleveland, Mangini the marine uncle. (Not saying he's better, just saying he's totally different.) Steve Spagnuolo got to know everyone in the building in St. Louis and promoted team to the point where he took down all individual current photos of players in the building.

3. The quarterbacks are all struggling and/or hurt. This week, 35 quarterbacks qualify for the NFL's quarterback stats, having played enough to justify inclusion. The five quarterbacks of these teams -- Matt Cassel, Marc Bulger, Matthew Stafford (though out currently with a knee injury), Josh Johnson and Derek Anderson -- are 25th, 27th, 29th, 33rd and 35th in passer rating, and also all in the bottom third in average per pass attempt, the more significant passing category.

Cassel and Stafford are their teams' quarterbacks of the future and are going through growing pains. Anderson and Bulger are almost certain to be replaced long-term with draftees or free-agents in 2010. Johnson is an interesting prospect, but Josh Freeman has the best shot to be the Bucs' long-term quarterback. When young quarterbacks struggle, rebuilding teams are almost always awful. It's a fact of NFL life.

Which team will turn it around in 2010? My guess is Detroit and Kansas City have the best chances because they have what appear to be strong GMs, strong coaches and quarterbacks who look like they have a chance. I don't expect Mangini to make it long-term, and I'm dubious about Morris because Tampa's going to lose for awhile longer -- maybe quite awhile. Spagnuolo should have a shot, unless whoever buys the Rams wants a big star as coach. Schwartz and Haley will have two or three years to prove themselves.

We're all just guessing on these teams, but the ones that turn around are usually the ones with strong coaches, consistent front offices and competent quarterbacks.

***

I like Shaun Hill as a leader and a player, but I'd have done the same thing Mike Singletary did Monday -- name Alex Smith the quarterback of his team for the foreseeable future. Simple reason: He gave the team a spark it hadn't shown in six quarters, and with the NFC West being taken over in the past couple of weeks by Arizona, time is running out to establish a toehold in the division.

The other reason: Smith hung around the 49ers' facility during the bye week and threw to Michael Crabtree. When they got together in the second half of Sunday's loss at Houston, they looked like they were very much on the same page. Crabtree, who played a surprisingly high 48 snaps in the game, will be force-fed the offense because Singletary thinks he's ready to be force-fed. He might be a bigger factor in this offense down the stretch than any of us predicted.

***

Mail time...

• NINER NATION WANTS MORE CRABTREE. From Armine Khansari of Houston: "Michael Crabtree: five catches for 56 yards, and a 20-plus-yarder brought back due to a penalty. He was on the field for almost every offensive snap and looks to be in great shape. I say he's legit Peter. What were your impressions?''

He's a little faster than I thought -- or at least played faster at Houston. And he'll be on the rug at Indy on Sunday, so that should help too. The couple of isolated replays I saw showed a receiver comfortable with the cuts and playing confidently; he wasn't intimidated by anything the Texans threw at him from what I saw. A good start.

• OVERSEAS FOOTBALL. From Jeff of Atlanta: "Good point on fans in Tampa never seeing Tom Brady, etc., because of the game overseas, but don't you HAVE to make that overseas game a cross-conference game? Otherwise, a conference game -- or even worse, a division game -- that might decide a playoff spot is lost, and the team that gave up that home date is REALLY penalized.''

I'm sure that's what teams will argue. But if I'm a fan, I tell my owner, "How can you rob me of my one chance to see Tom Brady EVER? I pay good money for these tickets. Take away the Jake Delhomme game, please. But not the Brady game.''

• THE REDSKINS SHOULD HAVE TOO. From Greg of Los Angeles: "Given their O-line problems this season, should the Packers have traded up or down to take one of the tackles in this year's draft? Michael Oher was available for a long time on draft day.''

Lots of teams are looking at Oher playing the left side for Baltimore and keeping Joe Flacco clear. Good point. I can't argue with you. I think Oher will be a vastly over-producing player compared to some of the men who went before him in the 2009 draft.

• POINT TAKEN. From Tom of Annapolis, Md.: "Once again Peter, I enjoyed your column, but I take issue with you and some others about Adrian Peterson's hit on William Gay. Gay got there on a bad angle and never had a chance to break down. Yes, he got wacked, but "ruined"? No. Peterson left the game after that, and his backup gave the game away. Gay never missed a play.''

Interesting point. But Chester Taylor is in the game a lot anyway, and you don't know if Peterson would have stayed in the game after that play or gone, depending on the play called and the formation used. I admire Gay for hanging in there, but that's a play that will haunt him for a while.

• PITTSBURGH. From Chris Palmer of St. Thomas, Ontario: "After Pittsburgh and Cincinnati beat two teams from the NFC North this weekend, who do you think stands a better chance to win the AFC North? Do you think the other team will be the wild card, or does Baltimore still have a shot?''

I like the Steelers. I think they're better on defense. If the Steelers can run it even a little bit, they should beat Cincinnati in the rematch and win the division. I like the Bengals to be a wild card, and I wouldn't count out Baltimore yet. I think they've played better than their three-game losing streak indicates.

• SHOUTOUT TO ASHWAUBENON HIGH. From Chad of Green Bay: "I happen to coach at Ashwaubenon High and take exception to your taking a shot at our receiving corps. Sure Al Harris and Charles Woodson could hold down our receivers for a while, but comparing us to the Browns? Ouch!''

They play some fine football in the Green Bay area. I've been to two Friday night games there over the years.

• COMES WITH THE TURF. From Ashley of Cincinnati: "Man, those crossword comments were harsh. It's like they think you won the Nobel Peace Prize prematurely.''

I know the Sunday crossword people, and believe me, they're not big Monday Morning QB fans.

Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/200...#ixzz0VFDDXrLJ

[Tribal Warfare]

Originally Posted by Pioli Zombie

I love this crap about "4 years of experience". He was on the bench behind Tom Brady those 4 years.
And I thought we were talking about Tyson Jackson, Mr "The 86 Broncos were as bad as the 09 Chiefs".
Posted via Mobile Device

So what, the reason he was signed in the 1st place because supposedly he could run a NFL offense with no "rookie" mistakes.

He was paid 63 million dollars with 28 guaranteed his time is now.

[DaWolf]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

Way to avoid the subject AND avoid addressing your previous posts.



Again, are you implying that since Tyson Jackson hasn't made an impact through seven games, he'll make an impact like Mario Williams did next year?

The only way Jackson becomes the player he was billed to be is if he becomes that solid guy who you can build a defense around, as Pioli compared him to Russel Maryland. If in two years that front seven is not one of the best in the league anchored by Jackson, then Jackson will not have lived up to his draft position.

[DaneMcCloud]

Originally Posted by Marcellus

25 makes him an unproven veteran? Huh.

Four years in the NFL doesn't constitute "youth".

Four years would be "veteran".

[DaneMcCloud]

Originally Posted by DaWolf

The only way Jackson becomes the player he was billed to be is if he becomes that solid guy who you can build a defense around, as Pioli compared him to Russel Maryland. If in two years that front seven is not one of the best in the league anchored by Jackson, then Jackson will not have lived up to his draft position.

If he's "Russell Maryland", I'll be even more pissed that the Chiefs took him #3 overall.

That ****ing fatass played 4 years for the Dallas Cowboys before moving onto the Raiders and finally Packers.

That's a pretty shitty career, IMO.

Tyson Jackson will NEVER live up to the #3 overall position, which is what makes his selection even worse.

[Fish]

Originally Posted by DaWolf

It doesn't really matter the ages. Carl and Herm were the ones who said they were going to go "youth movement". And their youngsters brought 6 wins in 2 years.

These new guys never said "youth movement", they said they're going to build the team in their vision and find guys who they feel can play. Obviously thus far they haven't, but I think again we're using a fallacy in thinking that just because a veteran is playing over a young guy, the young guy is not getting experience and therefore not becoming good, while the vet sucks and is still getting the PT. When in reality, the young guy probably sucks anyway, and you're wasting time playing him because he's not ready to play. For reference, see Herm Edwards, 2007 and 2008.

We've tried it both ways. It doesn't matter. The bottom line is someone needs to find good football players for this team, I don't care if they are 22 or 32...

Well... quite a few of the young guys that excelled last year have started this year. Brandon Carr was pretty raw when he arrived. He still is in some ways. But the experience he got last year, while making mistakes along the way, dramatically improved him and locked him in as a starter this season. Same for Mike Cox, who played almost out of necessity. Tank, who had improved quite a bit over last season, got valuable experience at times last season. Enough to require a draft pick in trade. This year Kenny Smith was brought in. Need I remind you when his last action was?

Like you said, somebody definitely needs to find good football players though. I haven't seen any improvement on that.

[DaWolf]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

This is patently FALSE.

The Chiefs didn't begin their "rebuild" until the 2008 draft. At that point, the team traded Jared Allen and brought in a youth at crucial positions. LT, RB, DT, TE, CB, CB and Safety.

They brought only two wins because the Chiefs went through three starting quarterbacks. Furthermore, they lost eight games by 7 points or less.

IMO, it seemed like they were building a nice, youthful foundation. Of course, Pioli disagreed and instead, neutered the team.

Disagree because midway through 2007 they began giving the young guys more playing time. It didn't begin during the 2007 offseason, but it did begin during that season once things went south.

And again, bringing in youth at critical positions is just terminology. They brought in a guard to convert to a franchise LT, and ended up passing on the best LT in the draft. They brought in a RB that has provided little to no impact to the running game aside from fumbling. They brought in a TE who can't play. And everyone on defense contributed, again, to a historically bad defense.

If they had actually done their job and drafted well, and also not built their youth movement around Brodie Croyle, they probably would have won more than 2 games and saved their jobs...

[Marcellus]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

Four years in the NFL doesn't constitute "youth".

Four years would be "veteran".

25 years old goes against the youth movement which was the original point of the post?

[DaWolf]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

If he's "Russell Maryland", I'll be even more pissed that the Chiefs took him #3 overall.

That ****ing fatass played 4 years for the Dallas Cowboys before moving onto the Raiders and finally Packers.

That's a pretty shitty career, IMO.

Tyson Jackson will NEVER live up to the #3 overall position, which is what makes his selection even worse.

Yeah, because you're basing it on stats. I base it on the fact that he was the anchor of a defense that won three super bowls, was in Jimmy Johnson's own words critical to their success, and did a lot of the dirty work up front. If Tyson Jackson is the anchor to a defense that wins even one super bowl, he will have been a huge success...

[OnTheWarpath15]

Originally Posted by DaWolf

The only way Jackson becomes the player he was billed to be is if he becomes that solid guy who you can build a defense around, as Pioli compared him to Russel Maryland. If in two years that front seven is not one of the best in the league anchored by Jackson, then Jackson will not have lived up to his draft position.

If Jackson turns out to be Russell ****ing Maryland, Pioli deserves to be drawn and quartered in Lot G in front of every Chiefs fan alive.

[OnTheWarpath15]

Originally Posted by DaWolf

Yeah, because you're basing it on stats. I base it on the fact that he was the anchor of a defense that won three super bowls, was in Jimmy Johnson's own words critical to their success, and did a lot of the dirty work up front. If Tyson Jackson is the anchor to a defense that wins even one super bowl, he will have been a huge success...

Anchor of the defense my ass.

Give me Charles Haley and Jim Jeffcoat, FTW.

[DaWolf]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

We didn't "try it both ways". What the **** are you talking about?

You can't rebuild the worst roster in the league in one ****ing offseason.

Yet Pioli decided that the majority of guys chosen in the past few years aren't part of the "Right 53", so those guys are producing elsewhere.

And a 32 year old guy may or may not make it through the season so it sure as hell BETTER matter.

I'm not just referencing 07-08 here, I'm talking Carl's history here. We've tried it with veterans, we've tried it with young guys, and it never went anywhere. And by anywhere, my measure is winning the Super Bowl.

And you know what, that "worst roster in the league" became the worst roster under whose watch? So of course anyone coming in here is going to rip it apart. You think Carl actually was building a core that could win the Super Bowl?

[DaWolf]

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

Anchor of the defense my ass.

Give me Charles Haley and Jim Jeffcoat, FTW.

Wow, OK. I guess Jimmy Johnson is just a dumbass who didn't know what the **** was going on with his own defense...

[DaneMcCloud]

Originally Posted by DaWolf

Disagree because midway through 2007 they began giving the young guys more playing time. It didn't begin during the 2007 offseason, but it did begin during that season once things went south.

Dude, it doesn't work like that. The Chiefs didn't go with a youth during the 2007 season. They drafted guys to play on the defensive line because they were necessary. There were no other new "young" guys out there. Donnie Edwards?

Originally Posted by DaWolf

And again, bringing in youth at critical positions is just terminology. They brought in a guard to convert to a franchise LT, and ended up passing on the best LT in the draft.

What? Clearly, you know nothing about offensive line play. Albert was a guard that pulled and played very well in space. He's a natural left tackle and the ONLY reason he played guard is because Eugene Monroe could ONLY play tackle.

How didn't they "pass" on the best left tackle in the draft when they didn't have a pick to draft him? Are you stating that the Chiefs should have passed on Dorsey, who was the unanimous best player in the draft, to take Clady, who was a questionable run blocker?

Clady wouldn't have the same success in KC as he does in Denver because the Chiefs don't zone block.

Originally Posted by DaWolf

They brought in a RB that has provided little to no impact to the running game aside from fumbling. They brought in a TE who can't play. And everyone on defense contributed, again, to a historically bad defense.

So Charles has had no impact? For a third rounder? Huh. I thought he played pretty well in the spread last year, touching the ball 67 times for 676 yards, good for 6.6 yard per touch. You're bitching about that?

Cottam is a receiving tight end, not a blocking tight end. Haley hasn't played him. Haley doesn't like anyone that was here before.

No ONE is stating that the defense was in place. But they're no better this year and that's after drafting three defensive players with their top three picks AND dumping three starters from last year's squad.

Originally Posted by DaWolf

If they had actually done their job and drafted well, and also not built their youth movement around Brodie Croyle, they probably would have won more than 2 games and saved their jobs...

So, since the Chiefs are likely to go no better than 2-14 this year after building their team around Cassel, Jackson, Magee and Washington, should they be fired as well?

I mean, one year is long enough to rebuild, right?

JFC.

[DaneMcCloud]

Originally Posted by Marcellus

25 years old goes against the youth movement which was the original point of the post?

If you were talking about a 25 year-old rookie or second year player, I might agree.

But a 25 year-old, four year veteran does not count as "youth", no matter how you try to twist it.

[OnTheWarpath15]

Originally Posted by DaWolf

Wow, OK. I guess Jimmy Johnson is just a dumbass who didn't know what the **** was going on with his own defense...

Had the conversation been about any other player, he would have called them an anchor as well - it's not like he's going to shit on his players.

And personally, I could give two shits what JJ thinks. If Jackson is a Russell Maryland clone, we've been ****ed right in the ass.

I'm not saying RM is a scrub - not at all - but you better get a lot more out of a 3rd overall pick.