Randy Moss = Touchdown Machine

Twelve years into his career, New England Patriots wide receiver Randy Moss remains on pace to break almost all the records held by Jerry Rice, an incoming Hall of Famer. I certainly don't expect him to break many, however, because Rice played for 20 seasons -- and most of them at an extremely high level. Moss may have entered the league at age 21, but he is unlikely to play into his 40s.

That doesn't mean we should ignore that Moss tied Rice on Sunday for the most seasons with 10 or more receiving touchdowns. In a league where scoring touchdowns is the goal, the duo tops an impressive list. Moss and Rice each have reached the milestone nine times, followed by Terrell Owens and Marvin Harrison (eight), and Cris Carter (six). Harrison and Carter are retired, so won't add to their totals, but it's conceivable Owens could reach 10 TDs again.

Granted, 10 receiving touchdowns is somewhat of an arbitrary number that sounds nice because of how many fingers we have on our hands. If the cutoff is nine receiving touchdowns, Rice (12) firmly leads the category followed by Moss and Owens (nine), and Harrison and Carter (eight).

Can Moss break the record? Possibly, considering he has reached the 10-touchdown plateau in each of his three seasons with the New England Patriots. But Rice and Harrison each had an eight-year streak snapped, and Owens is watching his own streak of three straight seasons end.

Arizona Cardinals receiver Larry Fitzgerald, who has four 10+ touchdown years in his first six seasons, is likely the only other active receivers who could join this elite group. Moss had five milestone seasons in his first six years, followed by Rice (four), and Owens and Harrison (three).

Here's the breakdown of the top five receivers on this list:

Randy Moss
Nine times, two teams, four QBs
New England Patriots

2009 13 Tom Brady
2008 11 Matt Cassel
2007 23 Tom Brady
Minnesota Vikings
2004 13 Daunte Culpepper
2003 17 Daunte Culpepper (12); Gus Frerotte (5)
2001 10 Daunte Culpepper (6); Todd Bouman (4)
2000 15 Daunte Culpepper
1999 11 Jeff George (8); Randall Cunningham (3)
1998 17 Randall Cunningham (15); Brad Johnson (2)

Jerry Rice
Nine times, one team, two QBs
San Francisco 49ers
1995 15 Steve Young (11); Elvis Grbac (4)
1994 13 Steve Young
1993 15 Steve Young
1992 10 Steve Young
1991 14 Steve Young (10); Steve Bono (4)
1990 13 Joe Montana (12); Steve Young (1)
1989 17 Joe Montana (14); Steve Young (3); Steve Bono (1)
1987 22 Joe Montana (13); Steve Young (8); Harry Sydney (1)
1986 15 Jeff Kemp (8); Joe Montana (6); Mike Moroski (1)

Terrell Owens
Eight times, three teams, four QBs
Dallas Cowboys
2008 10 Tony Romo (9); Brooks Bollinger (1)
2007 15 Tony Romo
2006 13 Tony Romo (10); Drew Bledsoe (3)
Philadelphia Eagles
2004 14 Donovan McNabb
San Francisco 49ers
2002 13 Jeff Garcia
2001 16 Jeff Garcia
2000 13 Jeff Garcia
1998 14 Steve Young (11); Ty Detmer (2); Terry Kirby (1)

Marvin Harrison
Eight times, one team, one QB
Indianapolis Colts
2006 12 Peyton Manning
2005 12 Peyton Manning
2004 15 Peyton Manning (14); Jim Sorgi (1)
2003 10 Peyton Manning
2002 11 Peyton Manning
2001 15 Peyton Manning (14); Ken Dilger (1)
2000 14 Peyton Manning
1999 12 Peyton Manning

Cris Carter
Six times, two teams, two QBs
Minnesota Vikings
1999 13 Jeff George (11); Randall Cunningham (1); Randy Moss (1)
1998 12 Randall Cunningham (8); Brad Johnson (4)
1997 13 Brad Johnson (8); Randall Cunningham (5)
1996 10 Brad Johnson (8); Warren Moon (2)
1995 17 Warren Moon
Philadelphia Eagles
1989 11 Randall Cunningham (9); Matt Cavanaugh (1); Roger Ruzek (1)

Nota bene: Yes, Moss did throw one of the 13 touchdowns to Carter in 1999 -- a 27-yarder against the New York Giants. ... The next three wide receivers on the list, each with five seasons, are Art Powell, Lance Alworth and Bob Hayes. ... James Lofton is the top player on the career receiving touchdown list (26th overall with 75 touchdowns) without any seasons with 10+ touchdown catches.

Inside the mind of Belichick

Winning football games, not fans, is Bill Belichick's priority.

But all the media criticism about the New England Patriots coach's fourth-down decision Sunday night would be understandable -- if he had clearly made the incorrect call. That's the problem. Casual football fans, and even the "knowledgable" media are too used to blindly following tradition. It's unfortunate most can't appreciate an unorthodox -- but logical -- decision.

Belichick decided to attempt a fourth-and-2 conversion from the Patriots' 28-yard line instead of punting the ball with a 34-28 lead. The conversion failed, the Patriots turned the ball over on downs and the Colts led a short touchdown drive to win the crucial AFC matchup by one point. 

I'm not going to lie. When I saw Belichick send the offense back on the field, I couldn't believe it. But that's not because I thought he was making the wrong decision (I really wasn't sure at the time). It's because he was making a nontraditional decision on national television.

"I thought it was our best chance to win. I thought we needed to make that one play, and then we could basically run out the clock. And, uh, we weren't able to make it," Belichick said in a Monday morning news conference. "I tell the team, and I think they believe, that I do what I feel like is best for our football team to win every game. So I put the team first, and I put those decisions first. And I would hope everybody understands that."

I believe him. Belichick wasn't being arrogant and he wasn't being stupid. He was making the call -- as odd as it seemed -- that he thought gave the Patriots the best chance to win. That's what coaches are paid to do every play, although only late-game situations are so magnified. 

And Belichick has done this before. In 2003, he infamously told his long-snapper to send the ball through the back of the end zone for an intentional safety in a game the Patriots were losing by one point with three minutes remaining. The play put New England behind three.

On the surface, allowing the other team to score points is ludicrous. But Belichick is smarter than the average fan, and knew the difference between a one- and three-point deficit at that point in the game is negligible -- in either situation, a touchdown wins and a field goal prevents a regulation loss. The Patriots' field position on their (potential) final drive was more important, and that made the opponent's field position on their final drive crucial.

Belichick determined that a safety kick would likely (not assuredly; he was simply playing the odds) result in better field position than punting from the one-yard line. Of course, none of that would matter if the opponent picked up a first down on their next drive and ran out the clock. But they didn't, and the Patriots started at their 42-yard line and scored the winning touchdown.

The following year, the Detroit Lions followed suit in a similar situation. Don't expect that this time around.

NFL coaches routinely make bad (i.e. conservative) calls for self-preservation. Belichick's name wouldn't be mentioned if the Patriots had punted, and the Colts had scored a game-winning touchdown. Today's stories would be about a monumental collapse by the Patriots defense, and about the legend of Peyton Manning. Belichick inputted himself into the equation because he cares about beating the Colts, and not about a Boston Globe headline.

And, please, let's be aware of hindsight bias. The fact that Belichick's intentional safety ended up working, or that his fourth-down attempt didn't means absolutely nothing regarding the decision itself.

As I expected, Advanced NFL Stats quickly analyzed Belichick's controversial call. The website uses historical NFL data to figure out win probability for a team at any point (using variables such as the score, time remaining, line of scrimmage and down-and-distance). Their conclusion?

Statistically, the better decision would be to go for it, and by a good amount. ... You can play with the numbers any way you like, but it's pretty hard to come up with a realistic combination of numbers that make punting the better option. At best, you could make it a wash.

Head to the website to get an exact analysis, and be prepared to get sucked into several convincing arguments against punting in certain situations. This is the quick explanation: 

What are the chances of the Patriots winning if they punt? Advanced NFL Stats says 70% historically, taking into account all the variables. What are the chances of the Patriots winning if they attempt a fourth-down conversion? Advanced NFL Stats says 79% -- the Patriots have a 60% chance of converting the fourth down, enabling them to run out the clock, and a 47% chance of preventing the Colts from scoring if they don't convert the fourth down.

The exact numbers and methodology can be critiqued, but the clear message is that Belichick's decision, at worst, is a tossup. Unless you ignore logic and rely on emotions, it was not a definitively wrong call to keep the punter sidelined. 

Nota bene: Belichick did make two other mistakes on that drive. As others have noted, the Patriots should have run the ball on third down if they had already decided to go for it on fourth down (a pet peeve of mine, and one I avoid when playing video games), taking the game past the two-minute warning. Failing to do so, the Patriots also wasted a timeout before the fourth down that rendered them unable to challenge a questionable spot. 

Team of the 2000s?

With the 2009 season halfway complete, it's a little premature to discuss the team of the decade. That doesn't stop the New York Times' excellent Fifth Down blog from posing the question. Or me from answering it.

When football fans think of the dominant teams of the 1960s (Green Bay Packers, 5 titles), 1970s (Steelers, 4), 1980s (San Francisco 49ers, 4) and 1990s (Dallas Cowboys, 3), a team instantly comes to mind.

This decade makes us stop and think. The NYT headline, and all of the comments, contain the argument to the New England Patriots (3 titles), Pittsburgh Steelers (2) and Indianapolis Colts (1). If the Patriots win this year's Super Bowl, it won't even be a debate. If the Steelers or Colts win, it gets tricky.

In this thought exercise, we demand both quantity and quality. Sorry, NFC.

We clearly value sustained success. Nobody makes a case for the New York Giants, who have more Super Bowl appearances (2) and as many titles (1) as the Colts. The reason? The Giants have four non-winning seasons this decade.

We clearly value the pinnacle of success. Nobody makes a case for the Philadelphia Eagles, who have as many conference championship appearances (5) as the Patriots, and more than the Steelers (4) and Colts (2). The reason? The Eagles haven't won any Super Bowls this decade.

At this point, I lean toward the Patriots, who notably have a 2-0 record against the Steelers and a 2-1 record against the Colts in the playoffs this decade. It certainly doesn't hurt to have an undefeated regular season on your resume.

Nota bene: The Patriots (16-0 in 2007), Steelers (15-1 in 2004) and Colts (14-2 in 2005) did not win the Super Bowl in their "best" regular seasons.

Week Three Playoff Picture

The Week Three playoff picture is much easier to figure out now that more teams have losses, and fewer tiebreakers are needed. In the AFC, the Steelers fall out of the playoffs and the Patriots slide in. It's the same six teams in the NFC as last week.

AFC Seedings

1. Jets (3-0)

2. Broncos (3-0)

3. Colts (3-0)

4. Ravens (3-0)

5. Chargers (2-1)

6. Patriots (2-1)

AFC Projections

Wild card

Colts 23, Patriots 13

It might not be fair, but a healthy Manning beats a rusty Brady

Ravens 27, Chargers 21

Putting trust in Norv Turner is a dangerous, risky proposition

Division

Ravens 17, Jets 16

Rex Ryan's old defense is fired up enough to fluster his new team

Colts 23, Broncos 10

Past playoff losses hurt Denver mentally in this one-sided "rivalry"

Conference

Colts 27, Ravens 20

Quiet home crowd helps Manning spread ball around for 300+ yards

NFC Seedings

1. Giants (3-0)

2. Vikings (3-0)

3. Saints (3-0)

4. 49ers (2-1)

5. Packers (2-1)

6. Falcons (2-1)

NFC Projections

Wild card

Falcons 28, Saints 27

Turner helps Atlanta control ball, provides two 1-yard touchdowns

Packers 16, 49ers 10

Absence of Gore too much for overwhelmed 49ers to overcome

Division

Giants 19, Falcons 14

Fast-rising receiving duo of Smith, Manningham provides boost

Vikings 20, Packers 13

Minnesota will pound the ball, and help Favre avoid key mistakes

Conference

Vikings 31, Giants 10

Harvin returns kickoff for TD, Minnesota avenges past playoff defeats

Super Bowl

Colts 17, Vikings 12

With six MVPs on the field, Division III's Garcon makes the big play

(Belated) Week Two Playoff Seedings

Although I figured out the playoff seedings almost immediately after Week Two ended, I completely failed in posting them. Better late than never, right? I didn't do my playoff projections until now, however, so I'll try to erase Week Three from my mind. For the curious, here are Week Two tiebreakers.

AFC Seedings

1. Jets (2-0)

2. Broncos (2-0)

3. Ravens (2-0)

4. Colts (2-0)

5. Steelers (1-1)

6. Chargers (1-1)

AFC Projections

Wild card

Ravens 23, Chargers 14

LT still sidelined, but Baltimore has three-headed rushing attack

Colts 19, Steelers 13

Vinatieri's leg gets another postseason workout with four FGs

Division

Colts 27, Jets 10

Manning has seen every defense in the book; Sanchez hasn't

Ravens 20, Broncos 7

Crowd doesn't appreciate Orton's three-INT performance

Championship

Ravens 21, Colts 18

Flacco spreads his postseason wings with 300 yards passing

NFC Seedings

1. Giants (2-0)

2. 49ers (2-0)

3. Vikings (2-0)

4. Falcons (2-0)

5. Saints (2-0)

6. Packers (1-1)

NFC Projections

Wild card

Saints 41, Falcons 28

Shockey, Gonzalez each score TD as defensive focus is elsewhere

Vikings 27, Packers 17

Peterson could have chance to break 300-yard rushing mark

Division

Saints 27, Giants 20

Manning doesn't have firepower to overcome crucial turnover

Vikings 20, 49ers 10

If Crabtree was playing instead of whining, 49ers would have shot

Conference

Saints 31, Vikings 17

Despite road game, dome is home-sweet-home for Brees

Super Bowl

Saints 31, Ravens 20

New Orleans has too many weapons for Lewis and Co. to cover

Playoffs?!? Are you talking about playoffs?!?

Some publications are already producing MVP watch lists, which I think is kind of silly, but whatever. The real problem is that the MVP doesn't ultimately matter! The Super Bowl does, and that's why I will publish the playoff seedings every week as if the regular season had just ended. Just for fun, I'll predict the playoff results using those brackets and the team's current injury situation.

The first few weeks (especially this one) will be somewhat skewed because of tiebreakers (e.g. teams that win division games have a huge advantage). The league's tiebreaking procedures are here. I am including a link to the relevant tiebreakers, but let me know if you wonder why Team X qualified instead of Team Y. As a caveat, I certainly could make mistakes because many of the tiebreakers needed this early in the season are never actually used by the NFL.

AFC Seedings

1. Baltimore Ravens, 1-0 (AFC North champions)
2. San Diego Chargers, 1-0 (AFC West champions)
3. New England Patriots, 1-0 (AFC East champions)
4. Indianapolis Colts, 1-0 (AFC South champions)
5. New York Jets, 1-0 (Wild card)
6. Denver Broncos, 1-0 (Wild card)

AFC Projections

Wild card
Patriots 27, Broncos 10
Denver's fluke Week One win won't be repeated against Brady & Co.
Colts 20, Jets 16
Manning (three NFL MVPs) edges Sanchez (one NFL win) in experience

Division
Ravens 21, Colts 15
Bye week will give revamped Baltimore defense time to settle down
Chargers 34, Patriots 24
Sproles, healthy Tomlinson give New England linebackers trouble

Conference
Ravens 19, Chargers 17
Lewis tackles Rivers for safety with Super Bowl berth on the line

NFC Seedings

1. Seahawks, 1-0 (NFC West champions)
2. Packers, 1-0 (NFC North champions)
3. Giants, 1-0 (NFC East champions)
4. Saints, 1-0 (NFC South champions)
5. Eagles, 1-0 (Wild card)
6. Vikings, 1-0 (Wild card)

NFC Projections

Wild card
Vikings 31, Giants 20
Stout Minnesota defense doesn't let Jacobs, Bradshaw get rolling
Saints 35, Eagles 17
An injured McNabb would play, but not well, as Brees throws four TDs

Division
Vikings 23, Seahawks 14
Peterson runs for 150 yards, 2 TDs as Favre remains a game manager
Packers 31, Saints 30
Crosby exorcises demons with long field goal to win expected shootout

Conference
Packers 21, Vikings 18
Favre rattled in return to Lambeau Field, throws three INTs

Super Bowl
Ravens 23, Packers 14
Dangerous RB trio wears down Packers defense with 200 yards on ground

Week One Observations

The NFL regular season has finally returned, and so have I. Because I work almost every Sunday, I'm not able to watch nearly enough football. This year, I bought NFL Game Rewind from NFL.com, which allows me to watch any game after the fact. And if I watch more football, I'll do more blogging (which isn't hard to do when I've set the standard at none during the past five months).

This week, I was able to watch the Colts-Jaguars and Packers-Bears live, and the Steelers-Titans and Patriots-Bills on delay. I also watched the NFL.com highlights for each of the other games. Here's some of my thoughts (I'm heavily biased toward the Patriots-Bills because I watched that game most recently):

1. Adrian Peterson (the Vikings version, of course) is the best offensive player in the league today. He had five runs of 10+ yards, including this jaw-dropping 64-yard TD. Running backs wear down quickly, especially when they have a lot of carries, so appreciate now what Peterson is doing in his third NFL season.

2. I'm shocked, and extremely thankful, that I haven't heard people clamoring for changes to overtime after the Steelers beat the Titans on an opening-drive field goal in the extra session. I'll assume people are still actually stupid, and simply felt Pittsburgh deserved to win after Hines Ward' heat-of-the-moment fumble in the final minute of regulation.

3. Jaguars coach Jack Del Rio made the wrong decision going for a two-point conversion at the end of the game. Not because the Jaguars missed, and lost 14-12, but because there was too much time remaining. Failing to convert with 5:30 left meant an Indianapolis touchdown would make it a two-score game. And only New England can overcome that deficit so quickly, right?

4. Three of the most athletic plays of the week came from defensive players in the Packers-Bears tilt. Green Bay defensive tackle Johnny Jolly sniffed out a screen pass and made a great diving interception that would make any cornerback jealous. Chicago safety Danieal Manning broke through the line to sack Aaron Rodgers in the end zone, using his strength to prevent a desperation heave. And Green Bay linebacker Brandon Chillar's hurdle of a running back to sack Jay Cutler was a thing of beauty.

5a. For all the furor over tennis players -- yes, tennis players -- swearing on television, I am surprised nobody noted that Wes Welker audibly dropped the f-bomb after dropping the first pass thrown his way. How can he get attention like Serena Williams and Roger Federer when saying naughty things? Lose?

5b. Randy Moss uses his lengthy arms to block with his hands, never putting his body into a defender a la Hines Ward. He also tries to block quickly and get to the next line of defense on running plays. Moss had three first-half catches on six targets and nine second-half catches on 10 targets, tying a career high with 12 receptions. Maybe Tom Brady, who only threw deep once (incomplete to Joey Galloway), just needed to get warmed up in his return from knee surgery.

5c. On Buffalo's second play from scrimmage, Terrell Owens was utterly confused. The Bills are implementing a no-huddle offense this season, and when Trent Edwards changed the play at the line, Owens threw his hands up in what-am-I-supposed-to-do fashion. After the snap, he jogged while watching the play develop, thankful it was a run.

5d. There were two things I never heard in all the coverage of Leodis McKelvin, who became the unwelcome center of attention after fumbling away a fourth-quarter kickoff return and allowing the Patriots to take the late lead. McKelvin fumbled on his previous kickoff return (although the Bills recovered), and actually took a touchback in a similar situation in the first half.

Is the NFL's landscape static or dynamic?

Ten years ago, Peter King of Sports Illustrated moderated a roundtable of seven NFL personnel to discuss the state of the game -- and its future. Would a re-read of the piece provide any insight after a decade's worth of changes? I have included some interesting portions of the 1999 discussion, and some quick thoughts about their current status.

The roundtable, with current position in parentheses, consisted of:
Bill Ford Jr., Detroit Lions vice chairman (same)
Ron Wolf, Green Bay Packers general manager (retired)
Mike Shanahan, Denver Broncos head coach (retired)
David Hill, Fox Sports TV president (same)
Gene Upshaw, NFL Players Association executive director (deceased)
Paul Tagliabue, NFL commissioner (retired)
Cris Carter, Minnesota Vikings wide receiver (retired, TV broadcaster)

Broadcasting

King: Is that on the horizon, Paul?

Tagliabue: Switching from broadcast television to some subscriber kind of television as the primary way of reaching the public? Certainly not. The Super Bowl becomes a national holiday because we have most of the nation interested and ready to watch it. Now does that mean you have to be static with respect to television? Absolutely not.

The NFL Network, which was launched in 2003, has given some fans 24-hour access to the league. There are some unequivocal positives -- like nationally televising the college all-star games, scouting combine and many preseason games -- but being a cable network has raised its share of problems. Eight of the league's games are now shown only on NFL Network, and some cable companies have refused to pay for the channel because it has marginal appeal to their subscribers.

Competitive balance

King: Ron, after seven years, is the salary cap working?

Wolf: If the idea of the salary cap was to bring about that six-letter word that everyone kind of chokes on, parity, yeah, then it's working. Because what has happened with the cap is, if you become good, you can't stay that way. I don't think, though, there is anything wrong with having a dominant team.

In back-to-back seasons we have seen the league's first 16-0 and 0-16 teams. The New England Patriots have won three Super Bowls in four seasons, and the Miami Dolphins have gone from 1-15 to 10-6 in one season. We know it is possible to have long-term success in the salary-cap era (e.g. Patriots, Pittsburgh Steelers, Indianapolis Colts, Philadelphia Eagles), but that certain components -- namely, a top quarterback, coach, and player evaluation system -- are key. The league continues to promote parity by rewarding bad teams with prime draft positions and easy schedules, making it much easier to turn things around quickly.

Player behavior

King: Player behavior. Several teams showed interest in Lawrence Phillips, who has been in a lot of trouble. Three Jets get arrested after a bar fight. The Dolphins sign a convicted cocaine trafficker. Anybody concerned?

Tagliabue: [All the reporting about bad behavior] is sort of a media phenomenon that happens when there's not much else to write about. As Cris said earlier, we could do a better job, but we have 2,500 players coming through the NFL every year. Compared to society at large, especially young people, we've got good young men.

Tagliabue may still be right -- that the vast majority of NFL players are law-abiding citizens -- but the high-profile nature of the Michael Vick and Pacman Jones cases has kept current commissioner Roger Goodell busy handing out punishment. The introduction of a personal-conduct policy has been effective in handling situations across the league more equitably. Also, teams may be growing wary of giving large signing bonuses to players whose bad behavior may make them expendable from the locker room (e.g. Plaxico Burress and the New York Giants).

Expanding schedule

King: Finally, what one thing would you do if you were commissioner for a day?

Carter: I would cancel the fifth preseason game. I'd also like to see the regular season have 14 games instead of 16 games.

King: Why?

Carter: Wear and tear on the body. The product would be better in the playoffs. Especially when you get in situations like we're in in Minnesota and Green Bay where we're practicing on artificial turf three days a week, maybe eight, 10 weeks out of the season.

King: Would you be willing to take less money to play 14 games than to play 16?

Carter: Yes, but I know they're not going to reduce the schedule.

Carter's response is interesting in light of the recent discussions about expanding the regular-season schedule from 16 to 17 or 18 games while at the same time reducing the preseason from four to two games. Several players have said they would need to be paid more in order to accept an extra workload (mostly applicable to starters who don't see much preseason action) because of the increased risk of injuries, particularly career-ending ones.

Conclusion

As with all companies, it's important for the NFL not to relax within a competitive marketplace because there are no guarantees that past success will continue. Nothing hurts worse than labor stoppages (with a 1987 NFL strike, 1994 MLB strike, 1998 NBA lockout and 2004 NHL lockout, it's football's turn again) because fans come back slowly. That's what makes the league's current negotiations regarding the collective-bargaining agreement very important.

Snow in Buffalo? T.O. still a go

Amid all the hubbub about Terrell Owens being signed by the Buffalo Bills (as a transplanted western New Yorker, I was among those completely blindsided by the news), I found most interesting one online comment -- essentially, "Have fun dropping all those passes in the cold."

Owens, although a Hall-of-Fame caliber talent, is notorious for dropping passes -- according to the Washington Post, he led the NFL with 17 in 2006, tied for third with 10 in 2007 and finished fourth with 10 in 2008.

Because he's nearing the end of his career, nobody expects Owens to put up monster statistics in Buffalo. The assertion got me thinking, however, if it is harder for wide receivers to find success in cold, outdoor environments. And, yes, Buffalo certainly qualifies. It would be possible to do an in-depth study of this phenomenon (or lack thereof), but here's a quick one for simplicity's sake:

Approximately one-third of the 32 NFL franchises could be described as playing their eight home games in cold, outdoor environments. Those 14 unlucky teams? (Minnesota, Detroit, Indianapolis and St. Louis play in domes)

AFC East
Buffalo
New England
New York
AFC North
Pittsburgh
Cincinnati
Cleveland
Baltimore
AFC West
Denver
Kansas City
NFC East
Philadelphia
New York
Washington
NFC North
Green Bay
Chicago

Granted, only about three or four home games played in November and December should be affected by sub-freezing temperatures and the possibility of snow. But based on my best recollections, significantly less than one-third of the top NFL receivers have played with those franchises.

Of the 60 seasons in which a player has caught 100-plus passes, exactly one-third (20) came in cold-weather environments. None of the top 10 did, however, and eight of those top 10 came with teams that play in domes.

Of the 58 seasons in which a player has recorded 1,400-plus receiving yards, slightly less than one-quarter (14) came with cold-weather teams. None of the top 10 did, and seven of the top 10 came in domes.

Of the 45 seasons in which a player caught 14-plus touchdowns, slightly less than one-third (11) were from cold-weather teams. In this case, though, four of the top 12 came with cold-weather teams, including Randy Moss's record-setting 23-touchdown performance with the New England Patriots.

It looks like T.O. doesn't have too much to worry about, after all. Well, about the weather, at least. For the curious, Owens has one season of 100-plus catches (2002 with San Francisco), two of 1,400-plus yards (2000, 2001 with San Francisco) and four with 14-plus touchdown catches (1998, 2001 with San Francisco; 2004 in cold-weather Philadelphia; 2005 with Dallas).

Houshmandzadeh's svelte in ... number

I was surprised to find out that new Seattle Seahawks wide receiver T.J. Houshmandzadeh, who signed with the team this week, will wear No. 18, as ESPN.com's Mike Sando reported in a recent blog post.

My curiosity was piqued because Sando revealed that the decision leaves No. 84 available for free agent Bobby Engram, if he chooses to return to the Seahawks. I was under the impression that wide receivers could only wear Nos. 10-19 if Nos. 80-89 were already taken. When only Nos. 80-89 were designated for wide receivers and tight ends, it became possible to run out if you carried more than six wide receivers and three tight ends on the roster.

But apparently I missed the memo. Prior to the 2004 season, the NFL changed the rules so wide receivers can use the No. 10-19 if they are rookies or on a new team. Numbers matter to many athletes as superstition, identity or homage (Chad Ocho Cinco, nee Johnson, wears No. 84), and ESPN.com exquisitely documented that several rookies jumped at the change.

Reggie Bush of the New Orleans Saints, wore No. 5 in college and tried to get the NFL to change their rules in 2006. The league considered a proposal to allow position players to wear Nos. 1-49, but it was never approved.

For a brief overview of why the NFL assigns numbers based on positions, and what the classifications are, read this Wikipedia post.

And, down the rabbit hole
I'm a big Randy Moss fan, and knew he wore No. 18 as a rookie with the Minnesota Vikings during the preseason before switching to No. 84. He went back to No. 18 during his Oakland years to channel some of his youth:

"I saw 18 on the list and I just went with it. I just thought about me leaving Minnesota, coming here to Oakland to make a new start, and going back to the number that really brought me into this league. Dangerous -- and I want to get back to being a dangerous football player."

When Boston Globe's Mike Reiss reported last year that Moss would wear No. 81 (the inverse of No. 18) with New England, he revealed "[Moss] had actually warmed to the idea of wearing No. 6 -- the amount of points awarded for a touchdown -- but was required to make the switch."

Still deeper in Wonderland
The comments on this 2008 post on Uni Watch, an excellent blog about everything associated with sports uniforms, answered some of my other questions (and raised some others).

At least two tight ends -- Washington's Chris Cooley and Indianapolis' Dallas Clark -- currently wear numbers in the 40s (44 and 41 respectively), presumably because they can be considered H-backs (an uncommon hybrid position of a fullback, halfback and tight end).

And, yes, Keyshawn Johnson wore No. 19 as the No. 1 overall pick for the New York Jets in 1998 well before it was allowed. As the aforementioned ESPN.com article explains:

This trend toward teen numbers can be traced directly to the Dallas Cowboys' No. 19.

"Follow me," Keyshawn Johnson said in the Cowboys' locker room. "It's nothing new. Seems like I always set a standard."

According to the Jets, all of their jerseys in the 80s were taken when Johnson was the No. 1 draft choice in 1996. He was given No. 19, standard procedure for a new player. But after the final cuts were made and some 80s became available, Johnson fought hard to hang onto No. 19. For reasons even the NFL can't quite explain, Johnson was allowed to keep the number.

That same year, some veteran receivers petitioned the league for numbers in the teens, but were denied.

"Keyshawn found a loophole," explained Gene Washington, the NFL's director of operations. "He was very persistent. The next year, we closed the loophole."

"I always wanted to be different," Johnson said. "I didn't want to be like everybody else. And the one thing I could do to identify myself to the fans and the world was by wearing a different number as an outsider."

Harrison's waning career

Update: Now, only two players among the top 15 reception leaders have played for one team -- Rod Smith, retired, and Marvin Harrison, who remains unsigned. In the offseason, Torry Holt was released by the St. Louis Rams and signed by the Jacksonville Jaguars. Tony Gonzalez was traded from the Kansas City Chiefs to the Atlanta Falcons.

The Indianapolis Colts released Marvin Harrison, who had played for the franchise for his entire 13-year career, last week and the future Hall of Fame wide receiver has yet to sign with another team. Can we expect to see Harrison wearing new colors next year, or is his career finished?

Bear with me for a moment, while I set up the background.

Harrison wasn't released solely because he is incapable of playing football anymore. The Colts couldn't afford to pay him so much -- Harrison was scheduled to make $13.4 million in 2009, the highest amount of any receiver, and the Colts saved $6 million in salary by releasing him -- and already have bonafide star Reggie Wayne and up-and-comer Anthony Gonzalez.

At the age of 36, Harrison clearly is nearing the end of his career. But even though he wasn't the No. 1 receiver in Indianapolis the past few seasons, he was a capable No. 2 or No. 3 option -- and there are plenty of teams out there that could use his presence, as ESPN.com's Bill Williamson attested.

In his most recent column, Sports Illustrated's Peter King said he thinks Harrison is done:

I would be surprised if Marvin Harrison plays again. Here's the thing about Harrison: He's made more than $80 million in his 13-year career, including $23 million over the last three seasons. He was due to make $9 million this year. His knees are hurt and he doesn't love football enough at this point to play for something like $2 million plus incentives. In fact, I don't think he loves football much at all right now, feeling the way he feels. And he's not going to fake it. Might he go to someone's camp this summer? Only if the gets real money to do so.

King's colleague, Arash Markazi, however, wrote shortly after Harrison's release that the wide receiver was almost done, but not quite.

Harrison's career isn't over. He'll likely play another season or two, but chances are it won't be for a team outside of Indianapolis. That is unless some team is more enamored with Harrison's name and legacy rather than what he can still do on the field. The best case scenario for him would be re-signing with the Colts and finishing his career where he started it 13 years ago, which in today's league is almost as impressive as any receiving record Harrison has.

Let's look at how other top NFL wide receivers have ended their careers. Harrison is second on the all-time receptions list, so let's look at the top 15:

Rank Player Catches Years
1. Jerry Rice 1,549 1985-2004
2. Marvin Harrison 1,102 1996-2008
3. Cris Carter 1,101 1987-2002
4. Tim Brown 1,094 1988-2004
5. Isaac Bruce 1,003 1994-2008
6. Terrell Owens 951 1996-2008
7. Andre Reed 951 1985-2000
8. Art Monk 940 1980-1995
9. Tony Gonzalez 916 1997-2008
10. Keenan McCardell 883 1992-2007
11. Torry Holt 869 1999-2008
12. Jimmy Smith 862 1992-2005
13. Irving Fryar 851 1984-2000
14. Rod Smith 849 1995-2006
15. Randy Moss 843 1998-2008
Active players are in bold

It's worth noting that only four have played their entire career with one team -- Smith, who is retired, and Harrison, Holt and Gonzalez, who are all active. Of the top 50 reception leaders (including ties, the number is slightly higher), only 13 have played their entire career with one team.

My point? How did these greats finish their careers? Of the nine who aren't still active, seven signed with their final team while in their late 30s. Only one (Jerry Rice) posted significant success, and one (Irving Fryar) was moderately successful. Simply put, Harrison is historically likely to sign with another team this year and catch fewer than 30 passes before retiring.

Jerry Rice, as usual, is a statistical anomaly. After leaving San Francisco at the age of 38, he had three productive years with Oakland, making one Pro Bowl, before his swansong season with Seattle.

Cris Carter left Minnesota at the age of 36, and caught eight passes for Miami.

Tim Brown left Oakland at the age of 38, and caught 24 passes for Tampa Bay.

Andre Reed left Buffalo at the age of 35, and caught 10 passes for Washington.

Art Monk left Washington at the age of 36, and caught 46 passes in a full season with the New York Jets before a six-catch affair with Philadelphia.

Keenan McCardell was traded several times at the end of his career, but after San Diego didn't want him anymore at the age of 36, he had a 22-catch last gasp with Washington.

Jimmy Smith retired with Jacksonville, the only team for which he ever caught a pass.

Irving Fryar played well for three teams, and after leaving Philadelphia at the age of 36, he caught 67 passes in two seasons for Washington.

Rod Smith played for the Broncos his entire career.

Reaction, not Calhoun, embarrassing

Update: Connecticut politicians are now calling for punishment of UConn men's basketball coach Jim Calhoun.

Another day, another non-NFL post — this one also about sports media.

Because I’m at work, I’ll refer to the most recent The Associated Press story to explain the situation that interests me:

Krayeske, a freelancer and political activist, attended the game on a photo press pass and asked the first question of the coach's postgame news conference following a 64-50 win over South Florida. He asked why the coach of a public university was making $1.6 million while the state has a $944 million deficit and a projected $8 billion shortfall over the next two years.

Calhoun first responded with a joke, then grew angry as Krayeske continued the line of questioning.

"My best advice to you is, shut up," Calhoun said.

"Quite frankly, we bring in $12 million to the university, nothing to do with state funds," Calhoun shouted. "We make $12 million a year for this university. Get some facts and come back and see me. ... Don't throw out salaries and other things."

Calhoun has won two national titles at UConn. He is the state's highest-paid employee and is set to make $1.6 million in 2009-10, the final year of his contract.

I’ll also direct you to Hartford Courant columnist Jeff Jacobs’ look at the story (and more importantly, the video of Calhoun's response at the press conference).

I’ll try to make my points short and sweet.

1. Like Jacobs, I feel the question was fair but more appropriate for a different setting. Calhoun is provided to the media by the school at a postgame press conference to answer questions about UConn’s latest win, and not about his salary. If a non-sports topic (such as his salary) was previously in the news, and the subject hadn't publicly addressed it yet, I would be OK with the question in such an environment. Asking the question in this case, however, is rude to the reporters present who are facing a nightly deadline and looking for quotes about the game they just covered.

2. Calhoun certainly could have replied “No comment” and avoided any scene, but I don’t feel his response was inappropriate. He answered the question, and then accused the photographer of not understandings all the facts — i.e. Calhoun brings a significant amount of money to the school, and by extension the state of Connecticut. (It’s also worth noting that Calhoun’s claim that the men’s basketball program brings in $12 million is based on revenue, not profit. The Hartford Courant reports the team spends at least $6.1 million.)

3. The video wasn’t even remotely outrageous. Connecticut governor M. Jodi Rell said, “I think if Coach Calhoun had the opportunity right now, he would welcome a do-over and not have that embarrassing display from last week.” Maybe my perspective has changed because Oklahoma State football coach Mike Gundy’s infamous rant came only last year, but I expect my “embarrassing” displays to be, well, embarrassing.

Two quotes, or not two quotes?

Despite the NFL scouting combine and impending free agency, my first blog post after a lengthy hiatus was inspired by two Chicago Tribune pieces about the Chicago Bulls and the NBA trading deadline. And my interest isn't even about the story itself -- it's about the reporting.

Here's a quote from a Rick Morissey column:

"Because of the economics of the business, we could be sitting here a year from now at the trading deadline with some expiring contracts and some chips, and there may become a significant player available because a team's not going to be able to keep him," Paxson said.
"You don't know. We're looking at this as, there's a real chance given the state of the league right now that those type of deals may come about."

Here's the same quote (presumably) from a K.C. Johnson article:

"But because of the economics of the business now, we could be sitting here a year from now at the trade deadline with some expiring contracts, and there may be a significant player available because a team might not be able to keep him. There's a real chance given the state of the league now that those types of deals may come up."

We'll presume that both of these interpretations are from one quote given by Bulls general manager John Paxson, which both writers either directly transcribed and/or digitally recorded. That being said, there appears to be a reason people are keen to say that they were misquoted.

Using the first quote as a base, the second has several words that are either added or missing -- "now" "trading" "and some chips" "become" "is" "not going to" "right" "about" -- not including two intro sections that may have been excluded for stylistic reasons. That's 12 words, and the first base quote is 66 words long -- so approximately a 20 percent variance between the two.

I have noticed this phenomenon several times in the Tribune, particularly in their postgame Bears section, where the same quote may be repeated six to eight times across various stories and columns, with every piece including a slightly different recollection of the actual quote. Just as in the above example, those differences can be considered minor -- added or dropped prepositions (as long as it's not "not"), or innocuous synonyms.

This particular case stood out to me because the two quotes were situated less than six inches apart on the same page, making their differences readily apparent. As a current copy editor, and someone who has some experience reporting, I find the differences between the quotes appalling.

I'm not bothered, however, because the differences represent inaccuracies.

It's practically impossible to write down a quote with 100 percent accuracy, due to the difficulty of our brain processing past information (what they said, which you are writing down), current information (what they are saying, which you are listening to) and future information (what they will say, which you are naturally trying to predict) all at the same time.

The latter even accounts for many transcribing errors because there are common phrases that we expect people to say, which can cause reporters to record words that are never actually said. It even takes me two to four times to accurately transcribe as few as two sentences from a taped recording.

What annoys me is the fact that the Tribune sports department didn't take the time to portray the same quote in the same way. When under impending deadline, I can understand why the cross-checking process might not occur. In most cases, however, there is ample time to keep the quotes consistent, which demonstrates editorial oversight and limits accusations of fabricating quotes.

There are several journalistic philosophies about quotes, and I'm not arguing for or against any in particular. I just think that a publication should remain consistent with whichever policy they choose (which the Tribune may very well be doing by allowing their writers to have moderately free reign) and hope that the same quotes aren't represented differently out of laziness or ignorance.

Baugh, Tarkenton and Tebow

Will Tim Tebow, the University of Florida's star quarterback who already has two national chapionships and a Heisman Trophy on his resume, have a successful NFL career? We won't have any idea until at least 2010, because Tebow is returning to the Gators for his senior season.

Nevertheless, recently fired Tampa Bay Buccaneers head coach Jon Gruden, certainly thinks so.

While answering a question about the spread offense's viability in the NFL during an interview with the Orlando Sentinel, Gruden says:

No question. The hard part is, you have to isolate the option. That's why Tim Tebow is so interesting to me. He's like Brandon Jacobs playing quarterback. He's 250 pounds. He's the strongest human being who's ever played the position. Ever. He will kick the living [expletive] out of a defensive lineman. He'll fight anybody. He is rare. Tebow is the kind of guy who could revolutionize the game. He's the 'wildcat' who can throw. Most of the teams that have the wildcat back there, it's Ronnie Brown, it's Jerious Norwood, it's whoever you want to say it is. This guy here is 250 pounds of concrete cyanide, man. And he can throw. He throws well enough at any level to play quarterback.

I think it would be fascinating to see an NFL team (most likely a bad one) decide to adopt a college-style option or spread offense, simply to see if it could gain a foothold. But, a new coach trying to solidify his career has too much to lose, and a more experienced (theoretically, successful) coach has too little to gain, so it is unlikely we will see a seismic shift in the near future.

That being said, Tebow would be in rare company if he is able to prove Gruden right and revolutionize the professional game by utilizing his skill-set. So far, only two quarterbacks have really done that: Sammy Baugh and Fran Tarkenton, both Hall-of-Famers.

Sammy Baugh, Washington Redskins (1937-1952)
Baugh was an incredible all-around athlete -- in 1943, he led the league in passing, punting and interceptions -- but he revolutionized the game by popularizing the forward pass. Before Baugh, quarterbacks were expected to hand the ball off, or run with it themselves.

But Slingin' Sammy threw the ball, and he could throw it well. His success relative to his contemporaries is reflected in the fact that he led the league in passing yards six times (tied for first with Steve Young). Baugh finished his 16-year career with 187 touchdowns and more than 21,000 passing yards.

The Washington Post's Michael Wilbon recognized Baugh's contributions in a December 19, 2008, column printed shortly after the great quarterback's death.

The nickname may have come from his prowess on the pitching mound, but it fit the way he would play the quarterback position. Benny Friedman threw the football down the field in 1928 for the NFL Detroit Wolverines and 1929 for the New York Giants, but Baugh was the first to play the position as we know it today. "Baugh demonstrated," [NFL Films president Steve] Sabol said, "that the forward pass could be an effective weapon instead of an act of desperation."

Fran Tarkenton, Minnesota Vikings, New York Giants (1961-1978)
Football is a game of cycles and Tarkenton revived the rushing quarterback, which Baugh had so prominently discarded. NFL Films declared Tarkenton the top mobile quarterback of all-time, largely because he pioneered the role.



Scrambing' Fran finished his 18-year career as the top passing (47,003 yards and 342 touchdowns) and top rushing (3,673 yards, 32 touchdowns) quarterback in the NFL. Thirty years after his retirement, only three quarterbacks -- Randall Cunningham, Steve Young and Michael Vick -- have surpassed his rushing totals.

Tim Tebow, Class of 2010
Currently, every quarterback in the NFL falls into one of two categories: A pocket-passer (a la Baugh) or a scrambler (a la Tarkenton). The vast majority are the former, simply because it is hard to stay healthy outside the pocket.

When Tebow joins the NFL, he has the opportunity to blur the lines. Tebow will never be a Hall of Fame quarterback, but he has the size to withstand punishment and his versatility could make him a viable dual threat. I don't think any team will use him as a starting quarterback, but having him split time (much as he did in his freshman season behind Chris Leak) and line up in a variety of positions, could pose serious matchup problems.

Sports Illustrated's Tim Layden captures the uncertainty of the Tim Tebow experiement well in a January column, writing "The NFL is fascinated with Tebow because he represents a potential evolutionary step in offensive professional football. (Emphasis here on potential because it's all a guessing game at this point.)"

Patriots mastermind Bill Belichick is rumored to be interested in Tebow, and I think that would be the most intriguing fit. Tebow is deified in college football, but will likely never be a star in the NFL. Belichick, however, is a throwback -- he has recently playcalled drop kicks and quick kicks, and many players contribute from positions on both sides of the ball -- and the team-first attitude he espouses might be the perfect remedy if Tebow falls back to earth.

Psychology vs. Super Bowl XLIII

There has been plenty of speculation in the media that Super Bowl XLIII, won by Pittsburgh 27-23 over Arizona, is the greatest Super Bowl ever. The day after the game, Sports Illustrated's Don Banks wrote "Snap judgments require making quick, rapid-fire assessments, but I think even upon further review, with lots of time to mull things over, I'd still come to the same remarkable conclusion: We just witnessed the best Super Bowl in history."

I hesitate to immediately bestow it that honor, however, while recognizing that the game was certainly an exciting one.

My main concern? The recency effect. The psychology term is used to explain the fact that people remember items at the ends of lists more clearly than those in the middle. There is also a primacy effect, which explains why items at the beginnings of lists are also remembered more readily.

A quick experiment, with answers at the bottom of this post:

Name the first three presidents. Name the last three presidents. Name the 13th through 15th presidents. Name the first three Super Bowl winners. Name the last three Super Bowl winners. Name the 13th through 15th Super Bowl winners. I can guess what set was most difficult to recall.

Essentially, it's easier to remember either sides of these lists because when remembering information, we have to start somewhere. Our brains need some sort of touchstone, and it is easy to understand why the most recent Super Bowl would be the simplest to remember. We can then work backwards from there fairly easily. (I can get through the last 15 or so, because the first Super Bowl I remember caring about was between Denver and Green Bay, in 1997).

If I gave you some more information -- like, Abraham Lincoln was the 16th president -- you will use that as a touchstone, and perhaps work backwards from there. It's much easier than starting at No. 1 and working your way up, or starting at No. 44 and working your way back.

All this to say, that I think the media is suffering from the recency effect when so quickly labeling the Steelers-Cardinals game as the best Super Bowl ever. As ESPN.com columnist Bill Simmons wrote the day after the game:

(Note to anyone playing the "greatest ever" card -- we quickly overrate the Super Bowl every time it's good. Settle down. The fourth quarter wasn't any more exciting than the Panthers-Pats game. Fitzgerald's long TD wasn't any more or less exciting than Isaac Bruce's long TD that won the Rams-Titans game. The ending wasn't any more dramatic than Bills-Giants or Niners-Bengals II. Let the record show that this game sucked for three solid quarters except for the Harrison play.)

I disagree with Simmons on the point that the game sucked for three solid quarters except for the Harrison play, and may elaborate in a later post. Simmons' broader point, however, is a good one. (He does accidentally, however, suggest that while individual pieces of this year's Super Bowl can be compared to those in past games, that the collective whole may be incomparable.)

If we could substitute any worthy candidate of "The Best Super Bowl Ever" designation with Sunday's Super Bowl, our opinions would likely change. A strong example? Imagine if we had just witnessed the Rams defeat the Titans 23-16 with Tennessee wide receiver Kevin Dyson futily reaching toward the end zone as time expired. Would that certainly not be considered the best Super Bowl ever, with the Steelers-Cardinals fourth-quarter shootout 10 years in the past?

I do need to point out that the most recent Super Bowl could indeed be the most exciting ever. Simply because it is the most recent doesn't change the nature of the game itself. I am just offering the idea that we need to approach the subject with a little more caution. I will follow my own advice, and offer up my personal opinion at a time further removed from the actual event.

Recency effect answers:
First three presidents: George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson
Last three presidents: Barack Obama, George W. Bush, Bill Clinton
13th through 15th presidents: Millard Fillmore, Franklin Pierce, James Buchanan

First three Super Bowl winners: Green Bay Packers, Packers, New York Jets
Last three Super Bowl winners: Pittsburgh Steelers, New York Giants, Indianapolis Colts
13th through 15th Super Bowl winners: Steelers, Steelers, Oakland Raiders

Super Bowl XLIII Prediction

Update: Steelers 27, Cardinals 23. MVP: Steelers wide receiver Santonio Holmes (nine catches, 131 yards, game-winning touchdown). I thought I had a chance for quite the prediction when the Steelers were winning 20-16 with four minutes remaining, and James Harrison's game-changing 100-yard interception return likely enough to secure him the MVP.

I have been abdicating my blogging duties this week, and for that I apologize. Hopefully, I won't have to apologize in three hours for my Super Bowl pick.

It is certainly cliche to say, but I can see this game going either way. But in this sense -- I think it's equally as probable that the Cardinals win or that the Steelers win by 21, if they start forcing turnovers and Kurt Warner starts getting desperate.

I am a big Warner fan, and I don't think he's ever really had a bad game in the playoffs. He's played in two Super Bowls and holds first and second place for most passing yards in the Super Bowl, winning one MVP in the process.

Let's not overlook the Steelers, though. I read that they would have been favored in the Super Bowl against any team, and I think they're certainly better than the Falcons and the Eagles, and comparable to the Panthers (the three teams Arizona has defeated in the playoffs).

My pick? Pittsburgh 19, Arizona 17, with Steelers linebacker James Harrison the MVP.

Flacco's year? Quite Dilfer-esque

I'm taking a break in the currently scheduled broadcast of all things Super Bowl to take a look at what would be written about if the Baltimore Ravens, instead of the Pittsburgh Steelers, had won the AFC Championship.

Heaps and bounds of credit were poured on Baltimore quarterback Joe Flacco, a rookie from Delaware who became one of the few first-year signal-callers to lead his team to the postseason. At the same time, Trent Dilfer, who led the Ravens to a Super Bowl victory in 2000, is still considered the worst quarterback to win a Super Bowl.

The problem is, it's not hard to believe that Dilfer had a better season than Flacco.

I am admittedly speculating that the media would continue fawning over Flacco if he won the Super Bowl, but I have no reason to believe they would suddenly change their tune. Quite frankly, the media was unduly swayed by the fact -- and it is a fact -- that Flacco had a good season for a rookie quarterback.

But in the grand scheme of things? Flacco = Dilfer.

If you actually look at their seasons, Flacco's and Dilfer's statistical outputs -- and the team surrounding them -- are almost identical. If Dilfer gets blamed (as he probably doesn't deserve) for being a bad quarterback, why isn't Flacco also just a game manager? If Flacco gets praised (as he probably doesn't deserve) for being a good quarterback, why isn't Dilfer also deified?

First things first. Dilfer wasn't even the leading passer on the 2000 Ravens. Tony Banks passed for a team-high 1,578 yards that season, but was benched for inconsistent play four games into a famous five-game stretch in which Baltimore scored zero offensive touchdowns (they won twice).

Dilfer replaced Banks in Week 8, and started the rest of the season. After an initial loss, he led the Ravens to 11 consecutive wins, including a Super Bowl victory.

Yes, the Ravens' defense in 2000 was one of the best in NFL history, allowing the fewest points (165) ever in a 16-game season. Including the playoffs, they allowed 10 or fewer points in 15 out of 20 games and posted four shutouts.

But therein lies the point -- the 2008 Ravens were similarly constructed.

The current iteration of Baltimore's defense was not nearly as historically dominant -- they allowed 244 points -- but they finished third in the league in points allowed and second in yards allowed. (The 2000 Ravens defense finished first in points allowed and second in yards allowed).

And this season, the Ravens relied even more on the running game than in 2000. The 2008 Ravens ran for 2,376 yards on 592 carries and attempted only 433 passes, while the 2000 Ravens racked up 2,199 yards on 511 carries and attempted 504 passes.

When all is said and done, Dilfer had more weight put upon his shoulders offensively (although he played in half as many games) yet produced similar numbers to Flacco. Dilfer went 134-for-226 (59.3%) for 1,502 yards, 12 TDs and 11 INTs to receive a 76.6 passer rating. Flacco went 257-for-428 (60.0%) for 2,971 yards, 14 TDs and 12 INTs to receive an 80.3 passer rating. When you include their playoff performances, Dilfer has the better overall passer rating.

Let's not be naive. Flacco played well for a rookie, but no better than Dilfer.

Nota bene:

- Although passer rating is by no means a perfect judge, and is skewed positively toward the modern game, it's worth noting that Dilfer's regular season passer rating was better than nine other Super Bowl winning quarterbacks: Eli Manning (73.9), Phil Simms (74.6), Jim Plunkett (72.9), Terry Bradshaw (55.2), Bob Griese (71.6), Johnny Unitas (65.1), Len Dawson (69.9), Joe Namath (72.1) and Bart Starr (64.4).

- Bradshaw's first Super Bowl victory with the Steelers is an astounding parallel to Dilfer. He didn't start until midway through the season and finished with average statistics -- 67-for-148 (45.3%), 785 yards, 7 TDs and 8 INTs for a 55.2 passer rating. I guess Dilfer needs to come out of retirement and win three more Super Bowls to have his season purged from our collective memories.

Top 20 playoffs for wide receivers

Update: Larry Fitzgerald caught seven passes for 127 yards and two touchdowns in the Cardinals 27-23 loss to the Steelers in Super Bowl XLIII, becoming the only player to record 100-plus receiving yards in four consecutive playoff games. His postseason totals -- 30 receptions, 546 yards and seven touchdowns -- are all NFL records, and enough for me to propel him into first place on this list. If Arizona would have won the Super Bowl, Fitzgerald would likely have been MVP (quarterback Kurt Warner certainly would have been considered) after an incredible fourth-quarter performance in which he gave Arizona its first lead of the game.

Update (4/16/11): I decided to see if any performances from the last two playoffs qualified for my list. Green Bay's Greg Jennings had pretty strong 2010 postseason numbers -- 21 catches, 302 yards, two touchdowns (both in the Super Bowl victory) -- but he had the luxury of four games and I never got the sense his performance was dominant. Minnesota's Sidney Rice (10 catches, 186 yards and four touchdowns in two games) and Indianapolis' Pierre Garcon (21 catches, 251 yards and two touchdowns in three games) both made legitimate arguments in 2009. I may reconsider in the future or expand the list to 25, but I'm not convinced yet. That said, I am going to move Fitzgerald to the top (he was originally No. 2) and I have to actually put Tom Fears (16 catches, 334 yards and three touchdowns in two games in 1950) on the list.

Arizona Cardinals wide receiver Larry Fitzgerald is having an outstanding postseason -- he has 23 catches for a playoff-record 419 yards and five touchdowns -- with the Super Bowl still to play. He is one of four players (Randy Moss, Jerry Rice, Tom Fears) to have three consecutive playoff games with 100-plus receiving yards, and a blog post on NFL.com documents exactly how strong Fitzgerald's start to his playoff career has been.

I thought it would be interesting to compile the other great wide receiver performances in NFL postseason history, so I compiled a completely unscientific top 20 list. I assessed no direct penalty for losing (because wide receivers don't play defense, etc.) although not winning prohibited a deeper postseason run. I rewarded consistency throughout the playoffs, but also weighted any performances in the Super Bowl and conference championships.

21. Wes Welker, New England Patriots, 2007
27 catches, 213 yards, two touchdowns
Three games, lost Super Bowl
Welker tied the record for most receptions in a postseason, and became the first to accomplish the feat in three games.

20. Ricky Sanders, Washington Redskins, 1987
15 catches, 285 yards, two touchdowns
Three games, won Super Bowl
Sanders set a Super Bowl record (since passed by Jerry Rice) with 193 receiving yards, scoring twice on nine receptions.

19. Sterling Sharpe, Green Bay Packers, 1993
11 catches, 229 yards, four touchdowns
Two games, lost divisional round
In his only two career playoff games, Sharpe recorded 100-plus yards in each game and scored four of Green Bay's five offensive touchdowns.

18. Michael Irvin, Dallas Cowboys, 1992
18 catches, 288 yards, two touchdowns
Three games, won Super Bowl
Irvin was consistent -- recording six catches for 80-plus yards in each game -- but saved his best performance for last, scoring twice in the Super Bowl.

17. John Stallworth, Pittsburgh Steelers, 1979
12 catches, 259 yards, three touchdowns
Three games, won Super Bowl
Stallworth caught one touchdown in each game, including a 73-yard score in the Steelers' fourth Super Bowl victory of the 1970s.

16. Antonio Freeman, Green Bay Packers, 1997
17 catches, 307 yards, three touchdowns
Three games, lost Super Bowl
Freeman picked up steam in each game, culminating in a nine-catch, 126-yard, two-touchdown performance in the Super Bowl.

15. James Lofton, Buffalo Bills, 1990
13 catches, 323 yards, three touchdowns
Three games, lost Super Bowl
Lofton caught 12 passes for 216 yards and three touchdowns in the two games before the Super Bowl, where he was limited to one 61-yard reception.

14. Isaac Bruce, St. Louis Rams, 1999
13 catches, 316 yards, two touchdowns
Three games, won Super Bowl
Both of Bruce's touchdowns were 70-plus yards, including the game winner with less than three minutes remaining in the Super Bowl.

13. Randy Moss, Minnesota Vikings, 1998
14 catches, 315 yards, three touchdowns
Two games, lost divisional game
Fitzgerald was still a ballboy for the Vikings when Moss caught two touchdowns of 40-plus yards and picked up 188 yards in the divisional loss.

12. Steve Smith, Carolina Panthers, 2003
18 catches, 404 yards, three touchdowns
Four games, lost Super Bowl
Smith picked up 298 yards in two games and his 69-yard touchdown catch on the first play of double overtime sent the Panthers to the NFC Championship.

11. Lynn Swann, Pittsburgh Steelers, 1978
13 catches, 274 yards, three touchdowns
Three games, won Super Bowl
In addition to his seven-reception, 124-yard, one-touchdown performance, Swann made one of the most acrobatic catches in Super Bowl history.

10. Tom Fears, Los Angeles Rams, 1950
16 catches, 334 yards, three touchdowns
Two games, lost NFL championship
Fears scored three consecutive touchdowns (43, 68 and 27 yards) and compiled 198 yards to lift the Rams to the title game.



9. John Stallworth, Pittsburgh Steelers, 1978
14 catches, 278 yards, four touchdowns
Three games, won Super Bowl
Stallworth scored in every game, including twice in the Super Bowl, and had a 10-catch, 158-yard performance in the divisional round.

8. Charlie Brown, Washington Redskins, 1983
14 catches, 401 yards, one touchdown
Three games, lost Super Bowl
Brown set the record for most receiving yards in one postseason (he is now fourth all-time), and averaged 28.6 yards per reception.

7. Andre Reed, Buffalo Bills, 1993
19 catches, 313 yards, three touchdowns
Four games, lost Super Bowl
Reed caught three second-half touchdowns in the NFL's best comeback, and his 151 receiving yards in the Super Bowl are the most for any losing player.

6. Anthony Carter, Dallas Cowboys, 1987
23 catches, 391 yards, two touchdowns (1 catch, 1 return)
Three games, lost conference championship
Carter's 227-yard performance in the divisional round set a playoff mark that stood for 11 years, and he added an 87-yard punt return in the wild-card game.

5. Steve Smith, Carolina Panthers, 2005
27 catches, 335 yards, five touchdowns (3 catch, 1 rush, 1 return)
Three games, lost Super Bowl
Smith set a playoff record for most catches, recorded a 12-catch, 218-yard receiving performance and became the only player with a receiving, rushing and punt return touchdown in the same postseason.

4. Fred Biletnikoff, Oakland Raiders, 1968
14 catches, 370 yards, four touchdowns
Two games, lost conference championship
Biletnikoff's seven catches for 190 yards and a touchdown in the conference championship was his worst performance of the postseason. He had seven for 180 yards and three touchdowns -- of 24, 44 and 54 yards -- one week prior.

3. Jerry Rice, San Francisco 49ers, 1989
19 catches, 318 yards, five touchdowns
Three games, won Super Bowl
Rice is the only player to catch three touchdowns in a Super Bowl (he tied his mark in the 1994 playoffs), catching seven passes for 148 yards. He previously scored twice, including a 73-yard touchdown in the divisional round.

2. Jerry Rice, San Francisco 49ers, 1988
21 catches, 409 yards, six touchdowns
Three games, won Super Bowl
Although Fitzgerald broke his postseason yardage record, Rice still has the most receiving touchdowns in a postseason, most receiving yards (215) in a Super Bowl, and is tied for most receptions (11) in a Super Bowl.

1. Larry Fitzgerald, Arizona Cardinals, 2008 
30 catches, 546 yards, seven touchdowns
Four games, lost Super Bowl

Fitzgerald has set the postseason record for most receiving yards, recorded two games of 150-plus receiving yards and caught three touchdowns in the first half of the NFC Championship to send Arizona to its first Super Bowl.

Nota bene:
- Jerry Rice (Nos. 2 and 3), Steve Smith (Nos. 5 and 11) and John Stallworth (Nos. 9 and 16) are the only wide receivers to make my top 20 list twice.
- NFC teams have a 13 to 7 edge over AFC teams in the number of representatives. The Pittsburgh Steelers are represented three times, while the Green Bay Packers, Washington Redskins, Dallas Cowboys, Buffalo Bills and San Francisco 49ers are all represented twice.
- Sixteen of the 20 players advanced to the Super Bowl -- 8 won, 7 lost and Fitzgerald's Arizona Cardinals face the Pittsburgh Steelers on Feb. 1.

Sorry, Cardinals -- first Super Bowls dismal

Update: The Cardinals came close, but couldn't end a six-game streak of franchises losing their first Super Bowl appearances. Pittsburgh prevailed 27-23, winning in the franchise's eighth Super Bowl trip.

It has been well documented that the Arizona Cardinals are making the franchise's first Super Bowl appearance, leaving only five teams (Detroit, Cleveland, New Orleans, Jacksonville, Houston) to never win their conference championship.

Yet how did the other 26 teams do in their first-ever Super Bowl appearance? Surprisingly, to me at least, not well. I will preface this by saying it seems like the results should be about 50-50 simply because the historical background of a franchise shouldn't impact the very specific events of any given season.

I might have to reconsider that idea, though, after running the numbers.

First-time Super Bowl participants are 8-18 in the big game, a miserable .307 winning percentage that grows even worse once eliminating meetings between two teams making their first Super Bowl appearances (by necessity, one of those had to win and one had to lose, so the data is not very valuable). There have been four such meetings, so the more reliable data shows a record of 4-14, a .222 winnning percentage.

The four first-time Super Bowl teams to beat a more "experienced" franchise? The 1974 Pittsburgh Steelers beat the Minnesota Vikings (third appearance), the 1986 New York Giants beat the Denver Broncos (second appearance), the 2000 Baltimore Ravens beat the New York Giants (third appearance) and the 2002 Tampa Bay Buccaneers beat the Oakland Raiders (fifth appearance).

Although the sample size is admittedly too small for any real statistical conclusions (I am tempted to analyze the data from the other three major professional sports to fix this), history doesn't bode well for the Cardinals, who face a Steelers team making a record-tying eighth Super Bowl appearance.

Live-blogging the AFC Championship

In order for my post not to grow from gigantic to gargantuan, I'm making a separate one for the AFC Championship game. I'll try to learn from my initial venture, and put the most recent updates at the top. And, I didn't really realize the game started at 5:30 so I missed the first half of the first quarter while eating dinner. Sorry!

Steelers 23, Ravens 14
Final
As I'll try to explore later, Joe Flacco did not have a very good season in my opinion. Just because he's a rookie, I don't really see the need to pretend that he is a future Hall of Famer. When the Ravens won the Super Bowl in 2001, pundits considered Trent Dilfer the worst Super Bowl quarterback ever, even though I'm sure his statistics are comparable (mediocre, at best) to Flacco this season.

That being said, Flacco is just a rookie. It takes time to get used the NFL, and I read a revealing explanation somewhere that said Flacco has essentially played two consecutive college seasons this year because he has played 19 games. Roethlisberger lost his first conference championship game, in his first season, but has since won the Super Bowl and is now going back for his second appearance.

That's all for tonight, but I'll try to post several times this week.

Steelers 23, Ravens 14
Fourth quarter, 4:00
Baltimore made a determined effort to block the extra-point attempt, because now it's a two possession game. The atmosphere on the field, in the stadium, and in the broadcasting booth is somber during the final minutes after Ravens running back Willis McGahee was carted off with what appears to be a serious injury.

Steelers 16, Ravens 14
Fourth quarter, 12:00
That opening reverse -- that's an actual reverse; what you typically see is an end-around -- was exactly what the Ravens needed for a spark to put together a touchdown drive. Polamulu jumped over the lines again, but Ravens running back Willis McGahee snuck to the outside and ended the play as one of the few players on the field still standing.

Steelers 16, Ravens 7
Fourth quarter, 15:00
I really am not biased against defense, but it is admittedly harder to write about than the offensive side of the ball. I'll lay some blame on television, which focuses on the offense, and some on myself. Now that it's a two-possession game, the Ravens really need to get points of some sort on their next drive. Neither team has really been able to run the ball, so Baltimore shouldn't be too afraid of Pittsburgh running out the clock, but time is not to their advantage.

Steelers 13, Ravens 7
Third quarter, 10:00
It's still anybody's game, and was that really unexpected? Both regular-season meetings between the teams were close, and this game remains within one possession. My one prediction? Ben Roethlisberger has extended plays with his feet, but he's going to throw an interception or lose a fumble by being less aware of his surroundings at least once during the remainder of the game. He almost did on the latest sack, and then gained the presence of mind to go down willingly.

Steelers 13, Ravens 7
Halftime
Pittsburgh definitely left some points on the field at the end of the half with some bad clock management. That's quite the faux pas in any game, particularly one that will likely be low scoring.

Steelers wide receiver partially made up for his dropped pass with a devastating block a few plays later -- the rookie is clearly learning from Hines Ward, who is known as the best blocking wide receiver in the league.

Steelers 13, Ravens 0
Second quarter, 14:00
There's one such big play. Pittsburgh quarterback Ben Roethlisberger kept another play alive with his feet, and although the coverage was excellent, everything fell into place during Santonio Holmes' touchdown run. The blocks downfield by his fellow wide receivers weren't excellent, but their effort caused enough distractions.

Steelers 6, Ravens 0
Second quarter, 15:00
Steelers safety Troy Polamalu might have been the first player in NFL history to make a tackle while being completely suspended in the air. His efforts on both third- and fourth-down stops were largely cosmetic, but they embody the attitude of the defense.

This game will most likely remain low-scoring, so it could very well be one big play -- a punt return, long reception or blocked field goal -- that makes the difference. And although we like to unfairly weight plays that occur in the fourth quarter, that play can come at any time in the game, and provide some important momentum.

Steelers 6, Ravens 0
First quarter, 2:00
Baltimore only has eight yards of offense as rookie quarterback Joe Flacco has struggled, going 1-for-7 with an interception so far. Pittsburgh's offense doesn't look great statistically but it has been efficient enough to drive down the field. Ravens linebacker Ray Lewis makes the big play the Ravens needed, forcing a fumble.

Steelers 6, Ravens 0
First quarter, 6:30
What an interesting situation to see Steelers coach Mike Tomlin throw the challenge flag, only to be pre-empted by Ravens coach John Harbaugh. Great call by Harbaugh. What seemed to be a Steelers touchdown, or their ball at the 1-yard-line turned into another field goal attempt.

The CBS announcers didn't seem aware of this, but Bill Carrolo was providing information to another official at the instant replay booth to make sure the call wouldn't be misrepresented once the referee returned to the field of play, a problem that occurred when Pittsburgh beat San Diego 11-10 in the regular season.

Live-blogging the NFC Championship

Correction: Kurt Warner has actually had three games with perfect regular season passer ratings -- I missed his 2000 performance on first glance. Peyton Manning holds the record with four, and Ben Roethlisberger also has three.

Hello to the rare RSS feeds out there that get this blog's posts. I'll be updating throughout the day as I watch the NFC and AFC conference championships, two of the few games I will get to watch all season because of my work schedule. The Cardinals host the Eagles, with kickoff imminent, and the Steelers host the Ravens.

NFC Championship: Cardinals vs. Eagles
Cardinals 0, Eagles 0
First quarter, 10:00
Arizona's first third-down scenario sets the tone, and says everything about the Cardinals offense. Facing a third-and-1, Kurt Warner lines up in a shotgun formation with three wide receivers. Eschewing the run, Larry Fitzgerald catches a short pass on a crossing pattern and picks up 19 yards. Arizona will live, and die, by the pass.

From a similar formation a few plays later, Edgerrin James picks up a first down on a 16-yard draw. That's the plan for the Cardinals, using the pass to set up the run.

Cardinals 7, Eagles 0
First quarter, 9:30
Picture perfect. Fitzgerald scored on another drag route, a similar play from his earlier first down and last week's diving touchdown against the Carolina Panthers. The Cardinals clearly couldn't have asked for a better opening drive: Warner went 4 for 4 and James picked up 33 yards on the ground on four carries.

Cardinals 7, Eagles 3
First quarter, 4:45
Philadelphia quarterback Donovan McNabb, who showed some agility with a 21-yard run on the Eagles' opening drive, has one 100-yard rushing game in 14 postseason starts. Arizona's James, a running back, only has two in 11 postseason games.

Cardinals 7, Eagles 3
First quarter, 2:00
McNabb = bad pass. Aaron Francisco = good tip drill. Francisco = good return. DeSean Jackson = good hustle. Francisco = bad fumble. Jon Runyan = good recovery. Jackson did an excellent job of not giving up after the interception, even running around defenders-turned-blockers in order to sneak back into the play, forcing the fumble.

Cardinals 7, Eagles 3
Second quarter, 13:30
Philadelphia is content picking up one first down at a time, and it's not a bad strategy to run (or short pass) down the clock when you are facing a potentially explosive offense. Arizona was fourth in the NFL in scoring offense in the regular season, averaging 26.7 points per game. Philadelphia, however, wasn't much worse, finishing sixth with an average of 26.0 points per game.

Cardinals 14, Eagles 3
Second quarter, 13:20
Yikes. Arizona obviously didn't want to have Philadelphia stick around, pulling out a trick play that worked to perfection. Unlike Fox announcer Troy Aikman, I agree on the roughing the passer call -- Warner had released the ball several seconds before getting hit. Larry Fitzgerald is definitely making the case that he is the best wide receiver in the league (I would also throw Houston's Andre Johnson into the discussion). Fitzgerald now has nine career games with two touchdown receptions, but the five-year veteran has never had three in one game.

Cardinals 14, Eagles 6
Second quarter, 9:00
Don't completely discount Philadelphia's field goals. They would obviously rather score touchdowns, but putting points of any type on the board keeps their heads in the game, and maintains pressure on Arizona to continue scoring.

Cardinals 21, Eagles 6
Second quarter, 3:00
And there is Fitzgerald's first three-touchdown performance, in one half no less. It is not exaggeration to say that we are witnessing one of the greatest postseasons by a wide receiver in NFL history, and I am anxious to investigate that after the game. The fade to Fitzgerald on first down is a great call because if Warner sees that there isn't anything there, he will just throw the ball too high knowing that he has two (if not three) more downs to work with.

Warner is showing off that quick release that infatuated the nation during his Cinderella rookie season in 1998. Honed within the small confines of the Arena Football League's playing field, his ability to get rid of the ball quickly is a wonderful asset used to expose the holes left by blitzing defenders.

Cardinals 21, Eagles 6
Second quarter, 2:00
That's a tough, tough call for Arizona because it certainly seems like they should have possession of the ball. It's interesting to me that the officials stuck to what they felt was the correct call instead of erring on the side of caution. They ruled that the ball touched a Philadelphia player and then went out of bounds, ending the play and making the apparent recovery nonreviewable. If they had ruled that the ball stayed in bounds, it would have kept the play reviewable, but would force Philadelphia to challenge the call.

The Fox announcers just said that Warner has a perfect passer rating (158.3) in the first half. His career best in the postseason is a 143.0 passer rating in a 49-37 divisional win over the Minnesota Vikings in 2000, a game in which he threw for 391 yards and five touchdowns. Warner had 'perfect" regular-season games in 1999, 2000 and earlier this season. He is ranked fourth in career passer rating, but note that the statistic has been hijacked by the differences in the modern passing game -- 19 of the top 24 players on the list are active.

Cardinals 24, Eagles 6
Halftime
Some quick tidbits: Nobody has ever recorded four receiving touchdowns in a playoff game, and Larry Fitzgerald joins a list of 10 other players who have caught three -- Jerry Rice accomplished the feat three separate times, including twice in the Super Bowl. As previewed in an earlier post, Fitzgerald has also become the fourth receiver with consecutive 100-plus receiving yards in three consecutive playoff games.

The Eagles have not played terribly in the fist half, but it appears the Cardinals have once again been inspired by a raucous crowd not accustomed to the playoffs. Arizona only had nine wins in the regular season, but six of them were at home.

Also, the Eagles score at halftime in McNabb's five conference championship games? 17-10 lead in 2002, 17-10 deficit in 2003, 7-3 deficit in 2004, 14-10 lead in 2005 and 24-6 deficit in 2008. Their only win (so far) came in 2005.

Cardinals 24, Eagles 6
Third quarter, 12:00
Things are spiraling out of control for the Eagles, who wasted a couple of nice receptions and first downs with a fumble by McNabb on a nice cornerback blitz. It's hard to even find something good to say about Philadelphia at this point. Arizona has been utterly dominant with no real mistakes, making anything positive that Philadelphia manages seem drab in comparison.

Cardinals 24, Eagles 13
Third quarter, 4:00
A nice catch by Eagles tight end Brent Celek for Philadelphia's first touchdown. After 26 catches in a 16-game regular season, Celek has 17 catches in three playoff games (he has a team-high eight so far today). Most tight ends serve as security blankets in the passing game, so it says a lot that Celek has almost half of McNabb's completions today.

That being said, this game is now a lot close on the scoreboard than it feels. The Eagles are still very much alive, and the Cardinals would bode well to reinstitute their running game and put together a time-consuming drive in response.

Cardinals 24, Eagles 13
Third quarter, 3:45
That was the worst nightmare for the Cardinals. They went three-and-out, took no time off the clock and provided the Eagles some energy by allowing Warner to get pressured into two incompletions before being sacked on third down. Arizona has negative four yards in the second half, and needs to focus on picking up first downs.

Cardinals 24, Eagles 19
Fourth quarter, 15:00
When was the last time you saw the best offensive player on your team -- Celek, now with nine receptions, 78 yards and two touchdowns -- line up to block for the extra point? It didn't seem to matter, as Akers missed his first extra point of the season. As anyone who has seen Ace Ventura: Pet Detective knows, the fact that the laces were in on the hold certainly didn't help as Akers pulled the ball right.

I support the decision not to go for the two-point conversion because there is still a full quarter to play, and it's only a one-possession game. And let's not ignore the humorous block by Hank Baskett on the Celek touchdown -- he took out two defenders with one push near the goal line.

And, no, that was not Warner's first reception of his career. He caught a pass, presumably from himself, for zero yards in a 2005 game with the Cardinals.

Eagles 25, Cardinals 24
Fourth quarter, 11:00
Wow. Philadelphia has done everything right in the second half, mixing the pass and the run while still taking the occasional shot downfield. It worked that time -- McNabb had so much time after rolling out that the entire offensive line was literally standing still on the opposite side of the field when he threw the ball. Nice concentration by Jackson, a rookie, on the touchdown catch.

It might sound hypocritical, but I do support the decision to go for the two-point conversion after this touchdown because the difference between a two- and three-point lead at this stage is much "greater" than a five- and four-point deficit earlier.

Cardinals 32, Eagles 25
Fourth quarter, 3:00
What a game this has turned out to be, and I'm sure Fox is breathing a sigh of relief after thinking they would be televising a blowout. The Cardinals were content running down the clock and taking the field goal if necessary, but ended up getting a touchdown on a safe screen pass. The two-point conversion is definitely the correct call at this stage in the game -- up by five with less than three minutes remaining.

And, I don't think Arizona should have attempted the fourth-and-1 near midfield earlier in the drive. At the time, there was more than seven minutes remaining in the game, plenty of time for one -- if not two -- defensive stops.

As the Fox graphic showed, Fitzgerald also passed Rice for the most receiving yards in a single postseason on this drive. Without him, it's hard to believe Arizona would be in this position. They would probably still be in the playoffs, because they played in weak division, but he is a legitimate game-changer.

Cardinals 32, Eagles 25
Final
McNabb did a good job trying to pick up a few yards on third down, knowing that they would go for it on fourth, but defensive pressure caused him to throw the ball behind Baskett. On fourth down, Curtis spent more effort trying to get a pass interference flag thrown than actually catching the ball, one of my biggest pet peeves. I am kind of surprised that pass interference wasn't called -- I don't think it necessarily was, but I think officials tend to call it, especially in these situations.

It was a terrible decision on the part of Darnell Dockett, the Cardinal who recovered the fumble on Philadelphia's last-gasp lateral-fest, to not go directly to the ground. I understand that he was excited but it's rude to try to score a last-second touchdown, and most importantly, incredibly stupid. A fumble by him recovered by Philadelphia for a touchdown would go down as possibly the most foolish play in sports history.

But that's nitpicking. Arizona played a better game than Philadelphia (barely) and Warner, not McNabb, drastically increased his Hall of Fame chances. Many more, coherent, thoughts on the NFC Championship at a later date.