An internet post that prompts me to dust off this blog

This guy claims to write for several internet websites, so I figure he's fair game. Let's get to it.

http://outofmyleagueminnesota.blogspot.com/2011/03/10-reasons-vikings-should-trade-adrian.html

10 reasons the Vikings should trade Adrian Peterson. Okay, I'm all ears.

10. A Decline Appears Imminent
Due to circumstances beyond his control, Peterson is set up for a drop-off in production. Without a legitimate threat under center, he'll regularly face eight and nine-man boxes, neutralizing his effectiveness. He was able to overcome this in his first two seasons (he averaged a combined 5.2 YPC in 2007 and 2008), but he was aided by an offensive line that featured Pro Bowl center Matt Birk and All-World left guard Steve Hutchinson. Birk departed before the 2009 season, and the 33-year old Hutchinson's play has deteriorated rapidly. Despite the offensive line's backslide, Brett Favre was able to keep defenses honest enough for Peterson to churn out a respectable 4.5 YPC over the past two seasons. Unfortunately, there's not a quarterback in the draft or on the open market capable of diverting defensive attention away from Peterson in 2011. Hence, opposing defenses will be afforded the luxury of pinning their ears back and swarming to Peterson, with little resistance from an increasingly permeable offensive line.

We get off to a roaring start with reason #10. Notice how he completely contradicts his argument within his own argument. He's arguing that without a proven QB, Peterson's production will inevitably decline. This is a belief held by many people, but it's never supported by facts. He readily admits that Peterson's yards per carry was over 5 in 2007 and 2008, when Tarvaris Jackson, Kelly Holcomb, Brooks Bollinger and Gus Frerotte all took turns playing QB. He then credits that production to the offensive line. Okay, so what is the lesson here? It's obviously not that who the QB is matters, because Peterson kicked ass no matter who it was.


9. He's Being Wasted
Piggybacking off my last point, Minnesota's once-feared offensive line has become a liability. Right tackle Phil Loadholt regressed in his sophomore season. Left tackle Bryant McKinnie plays when he wants to play. Left guard Steve Hutchinson, when healthy, is a shell of his former self. Center John Sullivan has been overmatched every step of the way, and right guard continues to be patched together by backup-caliber talent. Games are won in the trenches, so what's the point of shelling out top dollar for an elite running back when your offensive line is constantly moving backwards? Perhaps Barry Sanders could best answer that question -- it's nonsensical. The Vikings have put the cart before the horse.

This would be a fantastic argument for a post about how the Vikings need to upgrade their offensive line. That's not what this is, though, is it? Somehow the decline of the Vikings' offensive line means they should trade Peterson. Or how about another thought; maybe they should just go ahead and improve their offensive line. Somehow the guy writes about the decline of the Vikings' offensive line and does not come to the conclusion that they should simply improve it. No, they should trade their best offensive player instead.

8. Sell High
It's a basic economic principle. Peterson's put to rest the injury concerns that followed him from the University of Oklahoma to Minnesota, and last season he righted his fumbling woes. He has four Pro Bowl seasons under his belt, and plenty of good football ahead of him. His value has never been higher, so trading him now would maximize his return in a trade. The timing is perfect -- next season he'll be a year older, and as I previously speculated, he'll be coming off a down year (by his standards). If his value is peaking, as I suspect, then it has nowhere to go but down.

"Sell high" is a fantastic principle, but there are, of course, limits. You know who else's stock has never been higher? Aaron Rodgers. Maybe the Packers should trade him as well. Hey, sell high. You should only "sell high" on players whose production won't reasonably hold up. Adrian Peterson is a special football player, and there's no reason to believe that won't continue for a few more seasons. I also love when people speculate on something, then use that speculation as fact. "I said Peterson's production will decline, therefore it will and his stock will be lower next season."

7. The Green Bay Packers
I realize it's difficult to accept for Vikings fans, but the Packers are the best team in the NFL. They're young, and their talent runs deep on both sides of the ball. With headliners like Aaron Rodgers and Clay Matthews, the pieces are in place for a dynasty -- or at the very least, a long run of NFC North domination. You can say all you want about the Vikings taking the Pack down to the wire in their first 2010 meeting back on October 24, but from that night forward the teams have gone in opposite directions. It's become painfully obvious that the Vikings are no longer in the same class as Green Bay. Considering that the Packers will likely have a stranglehold on the division for the foreseeable future, and that both Chicago and Detroit are trending in the right direction, the Vikings will be facing an uphill battle just to earn a Wild Card birth the next handful of years. As it stands, the Vikings are an aging 6-10 team on the decline. Wouldn't you rather be a young 5-11 team on the rise?

How the state of the Packers affects the Vikings' decision making on something like this, I'll never know. His thesis, basically, is that the Vikings are aging and need to get younger. Adrian Peterson just turned 26. Remember, guy, you're not advocating for trading Antoine Winfield or someone who actually is getting old. Peterson is right smack dab in the prime of his career. Therefore he should be traded so the Vikings can get younger. This is logic at work.

6. It's a Passing League
The modern era of the NFL is all about passing. Look no further than the Super Bowl-winning quarterbacks of the last eight years: Aaron Rodgers, Drew Brees, Ben Roethlisberger, Eli Manning, Peyton Manning, and Tom Brady. If you can envision the names Joe Webb, Jake Locker, or Vince Young on that list, then you might as well stop reading because I can't reach you. If you're still here, allow me do drop one more knowledge bomb. In 2006, Joseph Addai rushed for 1,081 yards, good for 18th among NFL running backs. Why is this significant? Because it's the most prolific season of any Super Bowl-winning running back in the last five years. The forward pass has officially replaced "three yards and a cloud of dust" as the winning formula in the NFL.

This is actually a good argument. A good argument, that is, if the Vikings can turn Peterson into a starting QB. Chances are, a good starting QB isn't going to be offered for Peterson, and the Vikings will have to draft their own. They can do this without sacrificing their top offensive player.

5. Wrong Recipe
Dating back to the early 1990's, every Super Bowl Champion has achieved excellence in at least two of three areas: quarterback, coaching, and defense. Last season the Packers had all three. Looking for exceptions to the rule? The 2000 Ravens and 2002 Buccaneers won with good coaching and historically good defenses. The 2007 Giants, perhaps? Sure, they're probably the weakest champion on paper in recent memory, but they fused experienced coaching, clutch quarterbacking, and a top-level defense. Show me the team in the last 20 years that won a Super Bowl with the combination of an elite running back, a mediocre defense, an inexperienced head coach, and a gaping hole at quarterback.

This guy is setting up a false argument here. He's saying the Vikings will need a good QB, coach and defense to win a Super Bowl. I wouldn't argue with any of that. How does this preclude Peterson's inclusion into the mix? I don't understand how Peterson's presence makes it so that the Vikings can't acquire a good QB and improve on defense. Apparently the only way they can improve at QB and cornerback is by trading Peterson, which is a false argument. They can draft and develop a QB, keep Peterson, and develop younger defensive players like Chris Cook, Everson Griffen and Asher Allen. Or they could draft other defensive players and develop them. Either way, Peterson's presence is not stunting the Vikings' ability to improve.

4. The Window Has Closed
It's time to start rebuilding. Sidney Rice and Ray Edwards are both at risk of walking via free agency, and despite the departure of Brett Favre and Pat Williams, this is still an old team. Key contributors Antoine Winfield, Steve Hutchinson, Jim Kleinsasser, Ben Leber, Bryant McKinnie, Visanthe Shiancoe, E.J. Henderson, and Kevin Williams are all on the wrong side of 30. That core feels even older when you consider that there's no true "quick fix" quarterback available -- the Vikings will almost certainly be in developmental mode at the position next season. The time has come to begin stockpiling young talent, as the Packers, Bucs, and Chiefs have done in recent years. Instead of hovering around mediocrity with an unbalanced roster, the Vikings would be wise to break it down, take their lumps, and attempt to build it back up stronger and better than ever.

If this were about how the Vikings need to get younger on defense, I wouldn't argue. Too many starters on that side of the ball are over 30. But again, he's advocating for trading a 26-year-old who happens to be the Vikings' best offensive player. Somehow that ties into the window being closed.

3. Running Backs Don't Last
According to the NFLPA, running backs have the shortest average career of any position in the NFL (just 2.57 years). Due to excessive wear and tear, 30 tends to be the magical age that a running back falls off the cliff. If leaned on heavily early in his career, a back can flame out even sooner. Take Clinton Portis, for example. The University of Miami burner (he once ran a 4.26 40) took the NFL by storm in 2002. By his sixth season, he was noticeably slowing down. By his eighth season he'd become a plodder. Now, heading into his 10th season, he's been cut by the Redskins. Sarcastically dubbed Clinton "Tortoise," his burst is long gone and he's running on fumes. Clinton Portis is 29 years old. How did he get so old so fast? Portis toted the rock 1,308 times (including postseason) in his first four seasons. Adrian Peterson, who turns 26 this month, has logged 1,271 carries in his four-year career. As a violent runner who actively seeks out contact, Peterson's career as an elite-level back is probably somewhere around the halfway point. By the time the Vikings are able to surround him with the right pieces, he'll likely be washed up.

Okay, look at Clinton Portis. Now look at his body type compared to Peterson. You tell me who you think can survive punishment better. This is actually not a bad argument, however I'm loathe to compare Peterson to other RBs because he's clearly a different breed than most. Who was the last RB to combine his size, strength and speed, Walter Payton?

2. Running Backs are Replaceable
Sure, elite-level talents don't grow on trees. However, more so than any other position, a successful running back can be turned up out nowhere. Oftentimes it's because their specific running style is appropriately matched to a team's rushing scheme. Don't believe me? Of last season's 1,000-yard rushers, seven out of 17 (41%) were drafted in the third round or later. In fact, none of last season's top three rushers were draft day darlings -- Arian Foster was undrafted, Jamaal Charles was a third rounder, and Michael Turner was a fifth rounder. Furthermore, the majority of teams have wisely adopted the "running back by committee" approach -- that is, a rotation of good, fresh running backs can be as effective as one great workhorse. Last season Adrian Peterson, who's set to make nearly $13M in 2011, racked up 1,639 yards from scrimmage and 13 touchdowns. In New England, the undrafted tandem of BenJarvus Green-Ellis and Danny Woodhead combined for 2,019 combination yards and 19 scores, and together they'll bank less than a quarter of Peterson's 2011 salary. As far as replacements, the draft includes names like Mark Ingram, Mikel LeShoure, and Ryan Williams, for starters. With regard to free agency, the ultra-talented DeAngelo Williams (27) highlights a lengthy list of veteran backs looking for work.

I actually like this argument. However, Peterson's a pretty special player. He's a guy who can score from anywhere on the field, so you can't just treat him like any other back. But it's true, RBs are the most replaceable players on the field. Oh wait, you're not done...

Perhaps the blueprint the Vikings should be following is that of the Atlanta Falcons. In 2008, the Falcons were able to turn their franchise around in just one season, going 11-5 after winning just four games in 2007. They did it with a new coach, a rookie quarterback, and a free agent running back (Mike Smith, Matt Ryan, and Michael Turner).

Notice how, in the same breath as saying that RBs are replaceable, he then mentions a team improving greatly, in part, by adding a RB. If Michael Turner helped the Falcons turn it around, maybe Peterson can help the Vikings turn it around as well? I don't know, I'm not a Mensa-level genius. This is a beauty here, too.

Is it crazy to think that the combination of Leslie Frazier, Blaine Gabbert, and DeAngelo Williams might share similar success?

I'm sorry, how exactly is trading Peterson going to net the Vikings Blaine Gabbert? Are they trading him to Carolina for the first pick? And why are you including DeAngelo Williams when we just agreed that RBs aren't important? This logic train has gone off the tracks.

1. The Haul
Would the Redskins' freewheeling, star chasing owner Dan Snyder be willing to sign off on another such swap? And if so, what would be considered a fair asking price for the league's best running back in the prime of his career? Maybe the conversation begins with hard-hitting safety LaRon Landry (26), Washington's first rounder (No. 10 -- Julio Jones, Prince Amukamara), and something along the lines of a 2012 second rounder. Cincinnati and Arizona both have very talented young cornerbacks, as well as high draft picks. Perhaps a deal could be structured around Leon Hall (26) and the Bengals No. 4 overall pick, or Dominique Rodgers-Cromartie (24) and Arizona's first rounder (No. 5).

I love - LOVE - when someone argues against a player, and then turns around and says they should get a great haul for said player. "Peterson is getting old, RBs are replaceable...let's trade him for a top-5 pick!" And by the way, anyone who has actually seen LaRon Landry play would not advocate for trading for him, unless you enjoy safeties who are clueless in coverage. But anyways...I have no idea what the Vikings could get for Peterson. But if everything you just said is correct, why would the Cardinals or Bengals part with a top-5 pick? They, too, need a QB. You just said it's a passing league, so why would they bypass on a QB to add a RB?

---

The point, of course, is not that any player is untradeable. The Vikings' future would undoubtedly be brighter if they had a great QB rather than a great RB. However, I happen to live in reality, and the reality is that the Vikings need Peterson. They'll most likely be breaking in a rookie QB next season, and without Peterson it would be one hell of a struggle to score points.

I didn't post this, though, for that reason. I posted this because of the comments section. "It makes complete sense to me." "Although I cannot argue one single point" "I bagen this article thinking it was lunacy. But it is a well argued set of points, compelling even. I have worried about longevity for some time. Backs don't last like Payton anymore -- see Shuan Alexander." Adrian Peterson = Shaun Alexander. Of course! This is what we're up against. This guy wrote an internet post with poor, contradicting logic, and it's considered by other Vikings fans to be of great value.

Notre Dame gets raped; Big East claims it was consensual

Per the Big East:

The Big East said Sunday the back judge is supposed to focus on the play clock. When it hits zero, he is then supposed to check on the ball before calling delay of game.

The league says there will always be some lag time, and that on the fake field goal, "this lag time created the situation where it appears the play clock expired just before the snap."

This is like the Supreme Court ruling that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone in assassinating Kennedy. What a flippin' joke. Delay of game is a black-and-white penalty; once the clock hits zero, if the ball isn't snapped it's a penalty. There's no "lag time," or anything of the sort.

Notre Dame twice last night was called for a delay of game penalty. Do you suppose there was any "lag time" allowed there? Of course not, because there is no such thing. When the shot clock runs out in basketball it's a violation, and when the play clock runs out in football it's a penalty. Period, no exceptions.

I was actually looking forward to the NCAA apologizing to Notre Dame for missing the call there, so I could tell them to take their apology and shove it up their ass. Instead they don't even do that, but rather deny the reality that a delay of game even happened. So not only do they not apologize for the mistake, but they insult our intelligence by acting like this happens all the time. Which it doesn't; delay of game is called often, and it's called when the play clock hits zero, not two seconds after the play clock hits zero.

Nothing, of course, will give Notre Dame the victory they probably would have had had delay of game been called (unless Michigan St. can hit a 51-yard field goal). But to spit on my face like this...fuck you, Big East. FUCK YOU.

Random musings a day before the NFL season kicks off

* The Baltimore Ravens have the makings of a pretty good team, but I am very worried about their cornerback situation. They will be starting Fabian Washington and Chris Carr (two failed Raiders, to put that in perspective) on Monday night, with newly acquired Josh Wilson as the 3rd corner. This is a team that counts Lardarius Webb as its best corner, so it's not a great situation even when they're healthy. And right now they're not, with Webb injured and Ed Reed seemingly on the permanent disabled list. If they can win and field a solid defense with that corner situation, I would be very impressed.

* The talent level of the San Diego Chargers has quietly regressed over the past couple of seasons, to the point that if you eliminated Philip Rivers from the equation, I'm not sure there's much difference between them and their division rivals. They'll be starting Malcolm Floyd and Legedu Naanee at receiver, and really have no impact on defense anymore. Shawne Merriman has declined badly, Jamal Williams is no longer there clogging the middle (he was a great nose tackle, really underrated), the linebackers seem average and I don't know what to make of their offensive line anymore. I'd be willing to bet that Marcus McNeill is missed more than Vincent Jackson; Norv can scheme around a missing receiver, but it's hard to scheme around a blindside protector who can't protect. I would still put the Chargers ahead of the rest of the AFC West because of Rivers, but they aren't so frightening anymore. I'm afraid their window of opportunity is very close to shut.

* When the Redskins acquired Donovan McNabb, I said that automatically made them a playoff contender. Uhh, I'd like to retract that statement. McNabb has gotten by before with substandard receivers, but I was not counting on the exhumed corpse of Joey Galloway to be starting for this team. It's not a stretch to say the Redskins' two best receivers are their tight ends, Chris Cooley and Fred Davis, with Clinton Portis probably next in line. I'm also skeptical of their move to a 3-4 defense. Players like Andre Carter and Albert Haynesworth really don't fit at all in a 3-4, but can be really good in a 4-3. I honestly have no idea why the Redskins are making such a switch; I would also wonder how a small inside linebacker like London Fletcher will fit into a 3-4. Brian Orakpo is the only player who seamlessly fits into a 3-4, and he was just fine last year playing in a 4-3.

* The Panthers and Giants finished with the same record last season, the Panthers went into New York and destroyed the Giants last season...so naturally, the Giants are the biggest favorites of the week according to Vegas. Okay I get it, the Giants are opening a new stadium, and they have a lot more fans than the Panthers so the action is going to be on them. But honestly, I think the Panthers are a nice sleeper (I hate that term; to me, the Rams were a sleeper in that last year in that they never woke up) team, with three explosive offensive playmakers, a more stable QB than last year (Matt Moore isn't great, but he shouldn't submarine their season like Delhomme did) and an interesting defensive line. The Panthers' defensive line had a very good pre-season, which doesn't mean much but they may have some intriguing young players there. One to watch for is 2nd year end Everette Brown, a 2nd round pick last year who will be counted on to be the team's best pass rusher. I think he's up to the challenge.

* The Denver Broncos, through various trades, have had 8 first and second round picks in the past two drafts. Here is what they've ended up with:

RB Knowshon Moreno, OLB Robert Ayers, CB Alphonso Smith (already traded), S Darcel McBath, TE Richard Quinn, WR Demaryius Thomas, QB Tim Tebow, G Zane Beadles.

Are you scared yet? You almost have to try to screw things up this badly. First and second round picks are premium picks, where you get starters and impact players. It's early, but I'd be shocked if more than three of these guys became long-term starters for Denver.

The Alphonso Smith pick is the best one. The Broncos, as a result of the Cutler trade, had the Bears' first round pick in 2010. They traded that pick for a 2nd rounder in 2009, which they used on Smith. Smith was just recently traded to Detroit for a backup TE named Dan Gronkowski. The Bears' first round pick went to Seattle, became the 14th pick and became S Earl Thomas. The flow chart for that pick went like this:

1st rounder in 2010 (Earl Thomas) ---- 2nd rounder in 2009 (Alphonso Smith) ---- 7th rounder in 2009 (Dan Gronkowski)

I continue to say, if you told me Josh McDaniels was a plant of the Raiders, Chiefs or Chargers, I wouldn't be surprised in the slightest. What a disgrace. Never before has a first round pick devalued so quickly.

* The Jets will continue their victory parade on Monday night....wait, what? They didn't win the Super Bowl last year? Well it sure seems like they did. I've never seen a 9-7 team that needed the Colts to roll over for them in order to make the playoffs celebrate themselves so vociferously. This team has all the makings of a crash-and-burn season. You know how the story goes; team gets off to slow start, QB is struggling, fans turn on the team, players turn on each other, season goes south, team finishes 6-10. And quite frankly, people are putting a little too much faith into Mark Sanchez. I like the guy, I think he can be good, but he was piss-poor for most of last season. Let's see it before we start proclaiming him the Sanchize.

* Almost everyone is picking the Packers to represent the NFC, and I'm left scratching my head wondering why. I mean sure, the Packers have a good team that went 11-5 last year. But they have some serious question marks as well. First, this team only has one legitimate pass rusher in Clay Matthews. Someone needs to step up and help him. And secondly, that corner situation looks awful shaky. Woodson can still play, but Al Harris is hurt and probably done as an effective corner in this league, leaving Tramon Williams to start and a rookie named Sam Shields playing the nickel. Sam Shields, by the way, was a receiver at Miami but apparently has been quite impressive. Either way, I really feel like you can move the ball on this team. This team feasted on bad QBs last season, but when they played good ones they got torched. Favre, Roethlisberger, Warner...they all had huge days against Green Bay, and I don't see why that would change this year. Unless they have an impact pass rusher that I don't know about besides Matthews.

Everyone picking Green Bay reminds me of a quote from somebody smart; when everybody is thinking the same, nobody is truly thinking.

* Finally, I haven't said anything about Notre Dame football in awhile, and that's mainly because I didn't know what to say coming into the season. This is a talented, underachieving roster with a coaching staff that led Cincinnati to an undefeated regular season coming in. I don't know what to make of that yet. Early returns are positive, as the defense was much better this past week, the discipline was noticeably better and Notre Dame was able to hold off a short rally by Purdue and hold their 4th quarter lead, something they struggled mightily with last season. So I'm encouraged heading into the Michigan game this week. But I'm not going to crown their ass (copyright, Denny Green) just yet.

As Lou Holtz once said (covered in spittle, no doubt); when we're good, I won't have to tell you.

In which I wish that Ken Whisenhunt was the Vikings' coach

Ken Whisenhunt absolutely should have gone out and gotten himself a better QB this offseason than Derek Anderson, but at least he's willing to admit when he's wrong about something and bench Matt Leinart. It's easy to bullshit people into Matt Leinart, as he's a former college star and first round draft pick. But Whisenhunt knows Leinart will not get the Cardinals to the promised land, so he's going to give Anderson a try.

On the other end of the spectrum, you have Brad Childress. His stubborn refusal to give up on Tarvaris Jackson is going to be the death of this franchise, I swear. The Vikings traded Sage Rosenfels (and Darius Reynaud; also a mistake in my opinion) to the Giants today, and will now go with Jackson and Joe Webb as the backups to Favre. Jackson has been, to put it nicely, terrible this preseason. He finished the preseason 12-26, including 2-8 in the final preseason game against Denver. Rosenfels may not be great, but he was certainly better than that and he deserved to be the backup.

But you see, Brad Childress can't get himself to admit a mistake. Four years ago he drafted Jackson and said he could be Donovan McNabb someday, and damnit it's going to happen come hell or high water. It really makes you wonder why this team even traded for Rosenfels. It's obvious that no matter how much he outplayed Jackson, he was never going to be placed higher on the depth chart. It's like Childress had to throw people off the scent, so he traded for Rosenfels in order to make it look like he was creating a competition.

Favre hasn't missed a start in a very, very long time and odds are he'll make it through these 16 weeks unscathed. But you never know, and you always want to have a trustworthy backup in place. The Vikings do not have that. They had that in Rosenfels; sure, he's had his problems in the past with some untimely interceptions and fumbles, but damnit the guy can throw the ball with some touch and accuracy, which is more than you can say about Jackson.

During the final preseason game, tight end Garrett Mills ran a seam route and got behind the defense. Jackson threw the ball well behind Mills, who could not catch it. It was a throw that would have tempted me to cut the guy on the spot if I were his coach. That is a throw an NFL QB needs to make 9 times out of 10, and Jackson has trouble making it 5 times out of 10. The Vikings have waited four long years for Jackson to develop, and it is time to cut the cord. This isn't to say that Jackson couldn't be a decent backup for someone else. He can play decently in stretches, and at the very least he can always take off and run. But as long as he's with the Vikings and Childress is the coach, he will never be fairly evaluated. He had no business beating out Rosenfels for the backup job, and only did because Childress refuses to admit his mistake.

What worries me is that Childress apparently still believes Jackson is the QB of the future, which is ludicrous. Jackson is what he is at this point; he's a scattshot passer with great arm strength and great athleticism. This is his fifth year in the league, and judging by this preseason he hasn't changed and I'm pretty sure he never will. Favre only has one year left, and it would be ridiculous for the Vikings to consider Jackson as a starter for next season. But that appears to be exactly what they're doing. At which point they'll be just like the Cardinals, foolishly believing in a former draft pick who never panned out and then benching him for an underwhelming veteran.

Ken Whisenhunt and his QB situation

Ken Whisenhunt has done a great job as head coach of the Cardinals, taking a talented but underachieving roster and turning it into a playoff team. But he made a huge mistake this offseason, electing to go with Matt Leinart and Derek Anderson at QB, rather than finding a steadier hand.

The Cardinals, whether they wanted to admit it or not, have known for years that Matt Leinart is not the guy. They tried to hand him the job in the 2008 preseason, but he instead flopped miserably (3 INTs in against Oakland) and they instead started Kurt Warner, with whom they almost won the Super Bowl. Matt Leinart's career numbers are miserable, when you consider he was playing in the very same offense that Warner ran so masterfully. This offseason, with Warner retiring, the Cardinals had an opportunity to make a fresh start at QB, but instead opted for Cleveland castoff Derek Anderson to compete with Matt Leinart.

Of course, it's not enough to just say that a team should make a move at QB without having other options. But there were other options this offseason. Donovan McNabb was available. Jason Campbell was available. They passed on Jimmy Clausen twice. All of these QBs represented better options than what Arizona elected to go with, and now they're going to pay for it.

Matt Leinart's tenure in Arizona is basically over. He burned a lot of bridges this week, and it wouldn't surprise me if they outright released him. This means that the team is basically stuck with Derek Anderson for this season. I don't mean to put too fine a point on it, but Anderson was as bad, if not worse, than JaMarcus Russell last season. This is a team with enough talent to remain a playoff team, and they've left it in some very uncapable hands.

Derek Anderson will make a nice test case for the role environment plays in a QB's performance. When Anderson was teamed with Braylon Edwards and Kellen Winslow, he played well, although he was inaccurate even then. When Cleveland got rid of all of their NFL-quality receivers, he became one of the worst QBs in the league. Now he's in Arizona, throwing to good receivers (including Larry Fitzgerald, one of the league's best) and playing with good RBs, but also playing behind a potentially leaky offensive line. Even with that caveat, there's no doubt this is the best situation Anderson has been in, and he's not without his strengths. Well okay, he has one strength; he throws a really nice deep ball. He's immobile and inaccurate with questionable decision-making ability, but man can he throw some pretty rainbows. We will get a good idea for how much a good supporting cast can help a QB, because Anderson is pretty dreadful otherwise.

I feel bad for Arizona fans, who were just starting to taste some success, and now the team has gone back to being run like it was throughout the 1990s and early part of this decade. The Cardinals made a huge mistake entrusting their otherwise talented team with these shaky QBs. They are roughly going from a A quarterback in Warner to a C-or-worse QB in Anderson or Leinart. They'd better hope their receivers can make up for the shortcomings of their QBs, or this is going to be a long season in the desert.

File this under "misleading statements"

Ross Tucker over at si.com seems like a generally decent writer. He occasionally provides anecdotes from his playing days, and he generally has a good grasp of what's going on in the NFL. But today he wrote an article about how the Broncos have their QB of the future on their roster, and it isn't Tim Tebow but Kyle Orton. So, fine, I mean I would definitely agree that Orton will be a better QB than Tebow over the next few years. But then we get this line:

In Orton, the Broncos already have a winning starter who has gone 29-19 during his career despite never really being "the guy" for either the Bears or the Broncos.

Here we go again (copyright, Whitesnake) with the "only QBs win games" stuff. Ugh, I can't believe I have to explain this.

Fact: Orton's teams do have a 29-19 record when he starts. Also a fact; Orton's 2005 Bears amassed a 10-5 record when he started. Also a fact; Orton completed 52% of his passes that season, with 9 TDs, 13 INTs and a 59 QB rating.

Is there anything in there that makes you believe Orton had anything to do with that 10-5 record? Orton was pretty clearly horrid that season (he was a rookie, after all), but that is the main season in which he amassed his won-loss record. Subtract that season and it drops to 19-14.

Ross Tucker is attempting to make you believe that only Orton affects the wins and losses of his team. Of course, that's not true. The Bears generally had a good defense every year he was in Chicago, although the 2008 unit wasn't that good, as evidenced by the fact that they missed the playoffs. The point is, it's ridiculous to attribute wins and losses to Kyle Orton. Orton is a winner when his defense is playing well and keeping scores reasonable (2005 Bears, first six games for the 2009 Broncos), but he all of a sudden stops winning when his defense crumbles (final ten games for the 2009 Broncos). Is that because Kyle Orton has a magical power to win and lose games by himself? No, it's because football is the ultimate team sport, and he needs a good team.

The main thesis of Tucker's article is fine, which is that Denver was stupid to draft Tebow when they already have a perfectly fine QB. And that's all Orton is, perfectly fine. He has the same problem that Jason Campbell has, which is that he's a league average starter and people don't like that. People either want a really good QB to get behind, or a really bad one to make fun of. Nobody likes having a league average starter that elicits no strong feelings either way.

But to call Kyle Orton a "winner" is to ignore the facts of his career. He had a rough rookie season, which is fine because he shouldn't have been playing and only was because Rex Grossman got injured in the preseason. He didn't become a full-time starter again until 2008, when he had an average season (79 rating) and the Bears finished 9-7 and out of the playoffs. Then last season he played above-average football (87 rating) while the Broncos collapsed from 6-0 to 8-8, unprecedented in the history of the NFL (the 2003 Vikings finished 9-7 after starting 6-0). He is not a "winner" with magic beans and pixie dust, he is a league-average starter capable of playing above-average football, and surrounded by a good team he can win. Surrounded by a mediocre or subpar team, however, Orton all of a sudden isn't such a winner.

I would also like the record to show it is also misleading to claim Orton has "never really been the guy" in either Chicago or Denver, when he was without question the starter for the '08 Bears and '09 Broncos, and will again be the unquestioned starter for the '10 Broncos. I suppose what Tucker means is that nobody has ever given him a big contract and long-term support, which is true, but the statement he uses is factually incorrect.

What I said then/ What they're saying now

Fans in Arizona are currently freaking out over their QB situation, and rightfully so. They lost a potential Hall of Famer in Kurt Warner, and are replacing him with a couple of backup-level players. Here's what I wrote in March:

The Cardinals signed Derek Anderson as competition for Matt Leinart, and while I think it's good that they aren't just handing the position to Leinart (who has done nothing to earn it), I don't think Anderson is the right guy. I've documented on here before how bad Derek Anderson was last season; basically, he was neck-and-neck with JaMarcus Russell for worst starting QB in the league. Anderson is a great deep-ball thrower with sketchy accuracy and questionable decision-making abilities. Basically, he's the antithesis of what Arizona should be looking for in a QB.

Arizona is losing one of the greatest rhythm throwers of all-time in Kurt Warner, and replacing him with two guys who are not rhythm throwers at all. Leinart possesses a lot of the same weaknesses as Anderson, only to a lesser extent but with a worse deep ball. What made the Arizona passing game so great was the accuracy and timing in which Warner got rid of the football; both Leinart and Anderson are incapable of running an offense that way. Between these two, I would personally start Anderson since he at least has one strength while Leinart possesses a bunch of mediocre skills. But I think Arizona is making a big mistake going with these two at QB. The Cardinals don't need a strong arm at QB (Warner didn't have that strong of an arm); they need someone who can get the ball to those receivers in good position and good timing.

So who was it who told the Cardinals to go into the season with these two as their QB options? It obviously wasn't me.