Thoughts on a Super Bowl in Cold Weather.

Perhaps it's that I've been born and raised in New England and have stayed here all of my life, but I'm officially annoyed by the number of people whining about this year's Super Bowl in New Jersey - a cold weather environment. I'm sick of people talking about how it should be in a dome or moved to Miami or how it's going to snow and screw up the Super Bowl. It's two parts annoyance though. It isn't just that I'm from New England and get tired of hearing people complain about the cold; it's that I'm also a fan of football and get tired of everyone complaining about having to play in "the elements."

What? Do you mean to tell me that professional football players can't play in the snow?

Part of the reason football is such an intriguing sport is that it's - mostly - an outdoor game during some of the roughest months. It's a game where you aren't just making adjustments based on your opponent; you're making adjustments to the environment as well. Consider the classic (even if more controversial) Snow Bowl between the Oakland Raiders and New England Patriots. Perhaps the biggest travesty is that we only remember this game for the one controversial call, and not for just how brutal this game was. Even Raiders fans should probably be able to admit that it was a great game - a true classic (even if they won't get over the tuck rule).

So how sloppy of a game was it? The Patriots fumbled the ball three times losing none of them (think about that some time, Raiders fans). The Raiders? They didn't turn the ball over once. Rich Gannon completed 54.8% of his passes for just 159 yards, but threw one touchdown. Not a great performance from a guy who completed 65.8% of his passes during the regular season. Ok, so it's easy to blame the weather. It is legitimately difficult to throw and catch in those conditions. Obviously, the snow impacted Rich Gannon - an MVP candidate having a phenomenal year. Surely, the new-to-the-scene, playing-in-a-game-too-big-for-him, not-asked-to-do-much Tom Brady would have fared equally poorly, right? And yet, Tom Brady completed 61.5% of his passes for 312 yards. Not bad for a guy who completed 63.9% of his passes in the regular season and was ALSO dealing with the SAME conditions. Similarly, two of the greatest receivers in NFL history - Jerry Rice and Tim Brown - had a combined 9 catches for 90 yards. Conversely, the top receivers for New England - David Patten and Jermaine Wiggins - combined for twice as many catches (18 - 10 for Wiggens, 8 for Patten) and almost twice as many yards (175).

Point being, the Patriots played pretty efficiently in some pretty brutal snow. The Raiders did not. However, BOTH teams had to account for it. The Patriots made better adjustments than the Raiders.

[EDIT: So, apparently I was misremembering this game. I've just found it online and rewatched it. These numbers are a bit deceptive because both quarterbacks actually looked pretty solid despite the snow. There were a few drops, but not a ton. In the end, the Raiders offense actually looked pretty good. The Patriots secondary had more to do with with the offensive issues than the snow. Brady, meanwhile, actually looked pretty pedestrian for a while. Most of his missed passes were just on bad overthrows which looked more the sign of a second year quarterback with limited experience than an issue with the snow. But if you are able to go back and watch that game, you might notice that while the weather does impact the game, it actually doesn't impact it as greatly as you might think. The biggest play that really stood out was on a Raiders punt when a rookie on coverage lost track of where the endzone was, kept backing up, then waited to touch it when it was past the goal line despite have a huge opportunity to down it within New England's 2 yard line. Hard to blame him, even though he was a rookie, given how confusing the field looked with all the snow.]

Or what about that crazy game between the Green Bay Packers and the Tampa Bay Buccaneers in 1985 in which 4-5 inches of snow fell and the Packers still gained 512 yards of total offense with quarterback Lynn Dickey throwing for almost 300 yards? Tampa didn't do so well, of course. They were shut out 21-0 and gained a mere 65 yards of total offense.

Again, BOTH teams had to account for it. The Packers did.

The difference is, of course, that the Packers/Bucs was a regular season game where even though it was sold out, only about a third of the ticket buyers attended. The Patriots/Raiders game is more meaningful though as it was a playoff game. And it was sold out - and everyone attended. This, of course, would be the primary concern for the NFL. If you were to schedule the Super Bowl in a cold weather environment and it snowed, would people still show up? It seems pretty obvious that the answer is unequivocally yes! It's the flipping Super Bowl!

To my mind, football is all about adjustments. It's not just adjusting to what your opponent puts in front of you; it's also adjusting to circumstances, to environments, to crowds, et cetera. These are all important factors in which the best team must overcome these. If a team like the Denver Broncos or the New Orleans Saints (teams we currently think of as "warm weather teams") NEED to play indoors or in 60-70 degree temperature, then they are not the best teams now, are they? This has always been an annoying argument to me - the idea that a cold weather Super Bowl would somehow be unfair toward teams that are built for warm weather. Frankly, the gradual removal of "the elements" from football has been one of the worst changes in the sport. Wouldn't putting all these Super Bowls in warm weather conditions ALL the time put teams from the north at a disadvantage since they tend to be built a little more for cold weather?

I didn't play collegiate football, but I did play in high school. Granted, we never played past November, but I'll tell you, it gets cold in November here in Massachusetts! I've played in a few snow games. It's tough and challenging. It's what football is all about. We like to complain about "player safety" rules as though they are watering down the toughness of the sport, but what about trying to keep this nice and easy conditions? Isn't that doing the same thing?

So the Super Bowl will be played in New Jersey. New York City might look like this in February:

While reporters and analysts (and I'm sure some overly privileged modern NFL players) are complaining about it, I say, "Good!" Football is a tough sport. It's supposed to be. It's not just tough because of the physicality. It's tough because of the crowds and the intelligence of coaches and - most importantly - the environment. Maybe I'm in a minority, but weather should be a factor! Consider how classic these games were or just how awesome these photos are:

Don't you just look at those and go, "YEAH! FOOTBALL!"

All this talk of how great it is to play the toughest sport in the country in these nice and pristine and - in some cases - artificial conditions for "ideal football" (which really just means "easy, passing-friendly football")? It just makes me think that the NFL is really this:

I mean, c'mon. If the US Men's Soccer Team can play and win in these conditions, any football team should be able to.

(P.S. That's not meant as a knock on soccer. Just saying that in a sport where ground conditions greatly impact the game, they can play on the snow while in the NFL, we're complaining that they might have to play in snow.)

It's football. What happened to it?

A Down Year in the NFL.

We're almost half way through the 2013 NFL season, and we've already heard a lot of grumbling about the quality of football. We already hear analysts and fans alike talking about how there aren't really many "good" teams this year. We've heard a lot about injuries, and we've heard a lot of blame being passed onto rules regarding limited practices - as if tackling in practice and two-a-days for six full months is somehow better for your body. We've already heard people write of the Patriots for being perhaps the best worst team in maybe NFL history.

So basically, it's just like any other year in the NFL.

Everyone wants to anoint teams with the "best" moniker so quickly. We always hear these arguments. It's as sure as the league passing overly convoluted rules in the name of "player safety." At this point in the season, there rarely are a good chunk of legitimately great looking teams. Everyone struggles early. Let's take a look at some numbers from this year and compare them to each of the previous five.

Through seven games in 2013, we have the following:

14 teams above .500
2 teams at .500
16 teams at .500

For those who slightly prefer percentages, that means that through the first seven games of the season, 43% of the teams have a winning record, while 50% have a losing record. What's more though is that we have 4 teams with one or fewer wins with 3 teams that have six or more. Ok, so we have half the league with losing records and we have four teams whose combined record would give us a total of just two wins. How does this stack up to years past?

Through seven games in 2012:

13 teams above .500
5 teams at .500
14 teams below .500

Ok. Maybe we have fewer teams with winning records, but we also have fewer teams with losing records. We have more teams looking just average. We also have the same number of teams with one or fewer wins (4), but in 2012, we only had two teams with six or more wins at this point.

Through seven games in 2011:

17 teams above .500
3 teams at .500
12 teams below .500

This year was a bit deceptive. After all, 53% of the league had a winning record at this point in 2011. However, although there were fewer teams with losing records, the losing teams were really bad. There were more teams with one or fewer wins (5), while there were the same number of teams that had six or more ones (2).

Through seven games in 2010:

17 teams above .500
2 teams at .500
13 teams below .500

I love talking about 2010 in this conversation. I love it because it shows just how difficult it is to truly quantify "good" and "bad" years in the NFL. At face value, you might look at those numbers and say, "Well, ok, there was one more bad team in 2010 than in 2011, but you still had 53% of the league with winning records! It was a good year!" However, although those numbers might be skewed to favor the "good year" argument, if you break it down by the "really good" teams versus the "really bad" teams, it is heavily leaning toward the really bad. In 2010, you see the biggest gap between number of teams with one or fewer wins (6 ) and number of teams with six or more wins (1). In 2010, despite more teams with winning records, you had more teams ultimately looking average.

Through seven games in 2009:

14 teams above .500
6 teams at .500
12 teams below .500

This is also a complicated year. It was almost one of perfect mediocrity. Not only do you see the most teams at .500 exactly than any other year since 2008, you also see a difference of only two teams between winning and losing teams. Additionally, the gap between the obviously good and obviously bad is almost balanced as well, with 6 teams that had one or fewer wins while there were 4 teams with six or more wins. However, it is worth noting that in 2009, you also had the most winless teams at this point in the season (Tampa Bay, St. Louis, and Tennessee were a combined 0-20 at this point in 2009).

Through seven games in 2008.

15 teams above .500
5 teams at .500
12 teams below .500

Additionally, there were 3 teams with one or fewer wins with only 1 team with six or more wins at this point in 2008. To my mind, 2008 was a year of perfect mediocrity. Over half the teams above .500 had just 4 wins, so you didn't see anyone stand out particularly early (to put in perspective, the Tennessee Titans were 6-0 at this point in '08). It was pretty much an average year in the NFL.

You can also look at these years another way: playoffs.

In the past five years, three of them featured teams that were .500 or below. In 2011, we had the 8-8 Denver Broncos. In 2010, we had the 7-9 Seattle Seahawks. In 2008, we had the 8-8 San Diego Chargers. Pretty bad sign of the times, to be honest.

Ok, ok. Sure, that's a little misleading. After all, the 2008 San Diego Chargers made the playoffs because they won their bad division while an 11-5 New England Patriots missed out thanks to divisional and wild card tie breakers. So the 8-8 Chargers making the playoffs don't necessarily mean it was a down year.

But where will we draw the line? In 2004, we had one of the biggest "down years" in a long time. There were two 8-8 teams in the playoffs (Vikings and Rams), and yet, neither one of them won their divisions. That means that there were literally only four teams in the NFC with winning records! It's pretty safe to call that a down year, regardless of how many total winning teams there were. There is something to be said about having the only .500 or below teams make the playoffs in the past five years be winners of terrible divisions rather than having 8-8 teams squeak in on wild cards.

But after two months of football, we must ask ourselves if we expect that to happen this year. If we were to start the playoffs this week, the AFC would have all six teams above .500 (Patriots, Chiefs, Bengals, Colts) and both wild card teams would be above .500 (Broncos - weird to think that they're just a wild card right now - and Jets or Chargers, not sure who has the tiebreaker though I believe it's the Jets). And in the NFC? Well, it's a little less pretty, but it's the same deal. All division leaders right now are above .500 (Cowboys, Packers, Saints, Seahawks). I'm not entirely sure who would have the wild cards if it were right now, but there are four additional teams in the NFC that are above .500.

This trend typically tends to persist throughout the year. Though it doesn't seem unreasonable to imagine an 8-8 team winning the NFC East (or frankly, the AFC North though they should have a 10-6 winner - it's just that it could take just an 8 win record to win it), it's hard to imagine that a .500 team would get in on a wild card this year.


When you compare the numbers of winning teams versus losing teams, plus the really good teams versus the really bad teams, plus the playoff pictures, it's hard to really suggest that this year is - really - any different than years past. Certainly, it's no 2004. But given the state of the league with its focus on parity and creating an environment where - in theory - no one should be really bad for really long (makes you wonder what's going on in Jacksonville, Buffalo, and Oakland, huh?), this is pretty much exactly what the league is and has been for a while.

And if you're looking for teams that pass the "eyeball" test, how many do you need? What is the minimum before you call it a "down year"? Right now, I'd say you've got Indianapolis, Seattle, Denver, San Francisco, New Orleans, and Green Bay playing pretty well right now with a few teams that are playing surprisingly well like San Diego or Carolina. Plus you've got the Patriots who somehow know how to win despite losing so many key offensive and defensive players while also just straight up  not playing well (does anyone think New England will be this bad at the end of the season? They almost always start 4-3 or 5-2, and almost every year, everyone talks about how not great they looked in the first half. I'm not saying New England is going to really turn it around - I'd honestly be surprised if they really make much of a splash in the post season - but they'll be better than they are now).  That right there is enough for me to say this is a normal year in the NFL.

I'm always surprised at how quickly everyone wants to jump on the "this year sucks" bandwagon when it comes to the NFL, but in reality, it's not that different. No, it's not a down year in the NFL. This is just what the NFL is.

Baseball's Lack of a Salary Cap - Part 2.

I talked about this last year during the MLB playoffs, discussing how the lack of salary cap is kind of a buzzkill for me - that I find the lack of a salary cap to be too much of an unfair advantage for the big market teams.

Since I often have this conversation with big baseball fans (in particular, Red Sox fans), I keep hearing about how this isn't a problem. The argument, it goes, is that money doesn't guarantee anything. That you can look and see the Tampa Bay Rays in the post season this year or the Houston Astros last. That you can look at the Yankees and Phillies this year (or the Red Sox last year). And you can say, "Money doesn't guarantee anything."

Let me be clear about what my argument is: I am NOT arguing that you can just buy championships and wins. I am NOT arguing that having no money means you are destined to just be terrible year in and year out. Obviously, high payroll teams miss the playoffs. And obviously, low payroll teams make the playoffs. But you can't look at the statistics and tell me that money doesn't matter. My entire argument is that having $120 million payrolls gives you an unfair advantage over smaller market teams that have $40-50 million payrolls. The more money you have, the deeper the team you can buy. The higher the payroll, the deeper your bullpen. This in turn increases your odds of winning in general, but especially in the post season.

This year was kind of the perfect example of what my argument actually is. This year was really refreshing. Of the 8 teams to make playoff series, 3 were in the 5 highest payrolls (Dodgers, Red Sox, Tigers) while 3 were in the 5 lowest payrolls (Rays, A's, Pirates). Then you had the Braves (a middle of the pack payroll) and the Cardinals (the 11th highest payroll, barely missing the top 10 by a mere $1 million - which sounds like a lot but is only 1% of their payroll).

So obviously, you can win in the regular season with a low payroll, but when you get to the playoffs, the lack of depth really becomes noticeable when they play top payroll teams. So this year, you've got 3 teams of the top 5 and 3 teams of the bottom 5. And ya know what happened? Can ya guess who won and advanced? The Red Sox, Tigers, and Dodgers. Go figure. The four teams with the lowest payrolls all got eliminated. And honestly? It wasn't even that close. So now we're left with 3 teams in the top 5 highest payrolls, and 1 team that is just outside the top 10.

Of course Red Sox fans don't have a problem with the lack of a salary cap. They've largely benefited from being in the top 5 highest payrolls! It's why they are able to so quickly go from a joke of a year to a World Series favorites! But teams like the Astros or Pirates don't have that luxury. They see limited success from great management specifically. (Great management is always important, of course. It's just a lot easier to win when you've got good management and $120 million.)

How can you say that it doesn't matter though? Here are the last 21 World Series winners and their ranking in terms of highest payrolls:

2012 - San Francisco Giants: $138 million (6th)
2011 - St. Louis Cardinals: $105 million (11th)
2010 - San Francisco Giants: $97 million (10th)
2009 - New York Yankees: $201 million (1st)
2008 - Philadelphia Phillies: $98 million (13th)
2007 - Boston Red Sox: $143 million (2nd)
2006 - St. Louis Cardinals: $88 million (11th)
2005 - Chicago White Sox: $73 million (13th)
2004 - Boston Red Sox: $125 million (2nd)
2003 - Florida Marlins: $63 million (20th)
2002 - Anaheim Angels: $61 million (15th)
2001 - Arizona Diamondbacks: $81 million (8th)
2000 - New York Yankees: $92 million (1st)
1999 - New York Yankees: $89 million (1st)
1998 - New York Yankees: $64 million (2nd)
1997 - Florida Marlins: $48 million (7th)
1996 - New York Yankees: $53 million (1st)
1995 - Atlanta Braves: $46 million (3rd)
1993 - Toronto Blue Jays: $43 million (1st)
1992 - Toronto Blue Jays: $44 million (1st)
1991 - Minnesota Twins: $23 million (13th)

(Interesting to see the explosion of money spent on talent though. The Yankees went from spending the most in 1999 at $89 million to spending the most just ten years later in 2009 at $201 million!)

In the last 21 years, only one team has won a World Series in the bottom half of payrolls. Another way to break it down though? Teams in the top 10 highest payrolls account for 67% of World Series pennants. Teams in the middle 10 payrolls account for 33% of World Series wins. Teams in the bottom 10 payrolls? ZERO!  And when you have only one team in that time frame in the bottom half (which means that 20 of 21 were in the top 15 highest payrolls), how can you sit there and say that it doesn't matter? No, I'm not saying you win based on your payroll, but I am saying that payroll does clearly matter.

To me, it's a lot like asking a kid in a wealthy suburb to take a standardized test, then asking a kid the same age in inner city Baltimore to take the same test. Who do you think is going to do better? Having more money is always going to create an advantage, whether or not that directly leads to specific success. Consider the Yankees, Phillies, Dodgers, and Red Sox the wealthy suburban sports teams while the Rays, Astros, and Marlins to be the inner city teams.

My argument is just that the lack of a salary cap does not put teams on even footing and as such gives certain high spending teams (or teams capable of spending a lot) a much more favorable chance at winning - not just in the regular season, but also in the post season. You can buy more depth because you can afford more depth. And that depth is what wins championships.

I just don't see how you can look at those numbers, see that no team in the bottom third has won in the past 22 years, that 14 of 21 winners (and in all honesty, likely 15 of 22 by the time this year is finished) were in the top 10, and then tell me that "it doesn't matter." Again, I'm not saying it means everything, but it obviously means something.

NFL First Quarter Rankings.

Coaches like to break down seasons into quarters. So how are the teams doing so far? Here is yet another completely subjective and totally arbitrary ranking post!

1. Denver Broncos

Who else can it be? Denver isn't just beating teams; they're crushing them. Peyton Manning has thrown 16 TDs to no interceptions! They're stacked on both sides of the ball, and have a few key players set to return soon. It's scary. Who can stop this team right now? The weird thing though is that Denver doesn't beat you right away. They take an early lead but let you hang around. Then in the second half, they just destroy you.  Each game was a close one...until the second half. Through the first four games, Denver has outscored teams in the second half by a combined score of 117-45. What's even more odd? The only team to hold Denver to fewer than 30 points in the second half? The Oakland Raiders, who held them to a mere 10 points.

2. New Orleans Saints

It's pretty much between the Saints and that other trendy NFC team, but I put the Saints here because so far, they just look like a more complete team. Defensively, they're doing just enough, not giving up more than 17 points in any game. Offensively, they are really clicking right now, outscoring the Cardinals and Dolphins 69-24. Those teams are defensively underrated and better than that score indicates. The only question really is how will this team hold up on the road? So far, they've played three home games, so it's tough to gauge since New Orleans is a notoriously difficult place to play on the road. Honestly? The NFC is probably going to come down to who has home field advantage.

3. Seattle Seahawks

The Seahawks have a big game coming up against an AFC contender in the Indianapolis Colts. This is a statement game for both teams. Seattle has looked dominant on defense, but has been inconsistent on offense. (Is anyone counting the Jags game? That's probably not a fair assessment of their offensive capabilities.) They looked incredible against another NFC favorite - the 49ers. The thing Seattle needs to prove is that they can play consistently well on the road. At home, they have outscored opponents 74-20. On the road, they've outscored opponents 35-27, winning both of those games late. If Seattle wants to be considered the dominant team in the NFC, they need to be beating the offensively challenged Panthers by more than 5 points. And they shouldn't be beating the headless Texans by 3 points. Looks like the "Seattle can't play well on the road" persona is back. But there's plenty of time to fix it, plus they have a pretty soft schedule. The biggest test looks to be that showdown with New Orleans IN New Orleans.

4. Kansas City Chiefs

In his first season with the Chiefs, Andy Reid has already gone 3-0 against the NFC East. Kansas City is playing good, solid football right now on both sides of the ball. Save that last game against the Giants, Alex Smith is becoming the definition of consistent. There's still a lot of work to do, but they have a solid foundation. They'll be in the playoffs with their soft schedule, but thanks to the Denver Bronco's video game offense, it'll be as a wildcard. Shame too since in most other divisions, KC would be a contender to win the division. They need the rush defense to play a little better, but otherwise they have the solid combination of good defense, decent offense. Will they be able to keep up with an offensively explosive team though?

5. New England Patriots

Putting the Patriots anywhere near the top five really seems to piss a lot of fans off since they've looked pretty bad in most of the games, but you can't argue with results. They're 4-0. Yes, you can't help but notice their soft early schedule, but there is something to be said about a team that knows how to win. There's something more to be said about a team that knows how to win while they're playing pretty bad football. They've slowly gotten better each game too. Dobson continues to avoid catching the ball cleanly and Thompson still struggles with field awareness, but they're starting to get on the same page as Tom Brady. And let's not forget that they're still missing the one of the greatest tight ends in the NFL in Gronkowski as well as a solid receiver in Amendola. Ultimately, here's the thing: the Patriots went into Atlanta - a team that's better than their record indicates - and won. They played solid football on both sides of the ball, save those last seven minutes. They bent at the end defensively, but they held. On the road. They've lost Vince Wilfork, but somehow you just know they'll be ok. After all, they're 4-0 without three of their best offensive weapons (including Shane Vereen). The game to look forward too though: the matchup with Miami.

6. Detroit Lions

The Lions seem to struggle with consistency and that loss to Arizona hurts. But it's early and so far they're 2-0 in the division. Those wins against Minnesota and Chicago weren't really as close as the final scoreline indicates. Their defense can be ferocious, but they can't be giving up 25 points a game. Fortunately, their offense is explosive, averaging 30 points and 404 yards a game. Matthew Stafford is playing at a high level, and Reggie Bush looks as dynamic as ever. If he can stay healthy, they can compete with most teams.

7. Indianapolis Colts

After an exciting and unexpectedly good rookie season from Andrew Luck, the Colts have changed offensive directions this year. They are asking less of Luck and more from their running game. With Ahmad Bradshaw and the newly acquired Trent Richardson, they rank 4th in rushing yards and 24th in passing yards. They didn't look great in the first two weeks - struggling against Oakland and losing to Miami - but they looked dominant (especially defensively - which has been quietly one of the top defenses in the league) against the 49ers. If they beat the Seahawks, they will have beaten two of the best NFC teams and suddenly become a favorite in the AFC (after Denver). And if they continue to run the ball as they do, this team has somehow quietly put together a team that looks awfully much like a post season team.

8. Chicago Bears

It might be blasphemous to say, but this Bears defense leaves a bit to be desired. They lead the league in turnovers with 14 total, but are 23rd in pass defense and 15th in rush defense. That mixed with the takeaways wouldn't be so bad if not for the fact that they're also giving up 28.5 points per game. Interestingly, it's a similar story on offense. 20th in pass yards, 16th in rush yards, but 3rd in points, averaging 31.8 points per game. The biggest improvement is the o-line which has kept Jay Cutler relatively clean and given him time. Even more is that Cutler has been getting rid of the ball quickly. So when he doesn't have a game like he did against Detroit - throwing three picks - Chicago can duel with any team. The problem is, they struggle to stop other teams from getting into duels with them in the first place.

9. Miami Dolphins

Yes, the Miami Dolphins beat the Indianapolis Colts. Yes they have the same record as the Colts. Ultimately, Indianapolis has looked better. No one can fault Miami for losing to the Saints in New Orleans.  But the Saints made them look bad. Statistically, Miami is a pedestrian offense (17th in points, 25th in yards, 19th in pass yards, 24th in rush yards). They're also a pedestrian pass defense. The strength of the defense though is that they don't allow too many points and they have a strong rush defense. Miami is playing well though. This upcoming quarter will tells us more though. They play Baltimore, Buffalo, and then travel to the Razor to face the Patriots.

10. Tennessee Titans

Wow. Just when this underrated team is really getting it going despite no one paying them any mind, they suffer a big loss with the Jake Locker injury. Fortunately, he didn't sustain a major injury and should be back in a few weeks. They've very quietly been putting together a solid team. Locker looks the same as always on the stat sheet, but he looks better on the field. The strength of this team is the defense. They're a top 10 defense when it comes to total yards, passing yards, and points allowed. And they're not too far off that with rush yards allowed either (ranked 12th.) The run game has looked solid too. Unfortunately for the Titans, they have a tough stretch ahead of them, playing the Chiefs, Seahawks, and 49ers.

11. San Francisco 49ers

I'm not sure I've ever seen people jump off a bandwagon as quickly as people have ditched the 49ers. After Colin Kaepernick exposed the Green Bay Packers defense again in the opening week, they looked like clear favorites to win the NFC. Since then, the Niners have been outscored 77-45. Ok, so one of those games was on the road in Seattle. No one plays well there. But one of those games was at home hosting the Indianapolis Colts - a playoff team from a year ago who the 49ers should have beaten. Not only did they lose, they got embarrassed. Their supposedly high powered offense got crushed by the Colts defense, and the Niners defense couldn't do much either. They've got some issues, but they appeared to get back on track against the Rams. They have an uphill battle to take the NFC West, but they can get in on a wildcard, no question. They're still a top tier defense, and they have the talent offensively to compete. Then again, how will this team look if they have to play a postseason game on the road in Seattle?

12. San Diego Chargers

Listen, I hate Philip Rivers as much as the next guy, but if Peyton Manning weren't a thing right now, Rivers would be a candidate for MVP of the league so far. The dude has played really well despite having less talent on the team than earlier years. He has them 7th in points, 8th in total yards, and 6th in passing yards. The run game is mediocre, but definitely good enough. The downside to San Diego is their defense, which is at the bottom of the pack. 30th in total yards allowed, 29th in passing yards allowed, and 21st in points allowed is not going to close out games. And it hasn't. They're sitting at 2-2 in a division that everyone knows belongs to Denver. The Chargers might be able to nab that second wildcard spot, but they need to get the defense in order first. On the plus side, San Diego has a pretty soft schedule.

13. Buffalo Bills

 Well, if you're looking for a team that doesn't make things easy, this is your team. In an alternative universe, this team is either 3-1 or 4-0 right now. They lost on a last second field goal to the Patriots. They won on a last second TD pass against the Panthers. They lost late after pulling within reach against the Jets. And they won on a last second takeaway against the Ravens. This team is literally a couple of plays away from being 4-0. Then again, they're also a couple of plays away from being 0-4. EJ Manuel has played well, but he's obviously a rookie. They're not scoring a lot of points. They had 5 takeaways against the Ravens and nearly lost the game. They have the talent, and they seem like the kind of team that will just hang around. The defense needs to get better though. They've been hurting with some key injuries in the secondary, but allowing nearly 400 yards of total offense isn't going to help them close out games. They're 0-2 in their division though. Not quite a playoff team yet, but they can get there. Probably not this year though given their schedule.

14. Cincinnati Bengals

It's been a weird year. The Giants turn the ball over 6 times against Dallas, but only lost by 5 points. The Ravens turn the ball over 5 times against Buffalo, but only lost by 3 points. The Bengals turned it over on four consecutive possessions...and WON! There used to be a time when turning the ball over more than twice was a death sentence for teams. These days, it doesn't seem to matter much. Cincinnati has a solid defense with an mediocre offense slathered with potential. AJ Green is one of the best young receivers in the game today. Mohamed Sanu has emerged as a great complementary weapon opposite green. Jermaine Gresham is a very good tight end. The running game could use work. BenJarvis Green-Ellis is a solid back, and Giovani Bernard appears to have a good explosiveness, but currently, they rank 22nd in rushing yards. Andy Dalton hasn't been playing consistently. He hasn't been "bad," but he's turned the ball over more than he's scored with 4 INTs and 3 lost fumbles to 5 TD passes. He's completing 63% of his passes, but he needs to cut down on mistakes. The defense is a top 15 defense in every category, and the AFC North is a weak division, so they should still be considered the favorites from that division, but so far they are just 1-1 there. New England will be a good test for them.

15. Green Bay Packers

 Well, it looks like Green Bay came into the 2013 season with the same problems as last year: the defense can't stop anybody. Their offense is every bit the powerhouse statistically that you'd expect. They're 2nd in points, 3rd in total yards, 3rd in passing yards, and 9th in rushing yards (which is a big improvement). But defensively, they can't stop anyone. They're giving up nearly 30 points a game and just over 400 total yards. It'd be one thing if they had a bend-don't-break style of defense (it worked for the Saints in '08 and almost worked for the Pats in '11). But they aren't getting takeaways either. They are minus 2 in turnover differential. Aaron Rodgers is playing very well again, but they don't seem to be totally in rhythm. There's something wrong when you get 4 takeaways in a row and put up only a couple of field goals. It almost seems as though Rodgers might be more aware than ever that he pretty much is the Green Bay Packers right now.

16. Houston Texans

Houston is a better team than their 2-2 record indicates. They should never have gotten manhandled like that against Baltimore, and they played very well against Seattle on the most part. The problem right now is mostly Matt Schaub who has already thrown 6 INTs. What's worse is when he's throwing those interceptions. They just come at bad times. Houston is -4 in turnover differential. It's hard for the defense to constantly be making up for offensive mistakes. The defense is a tale of two parts though. They're a tough d to pass on, but they're not that tough a defense to run on right now. They're giving up over 100 yards per game on the ground. Arian Foster seems to have gotten into the swing of things after a slow start. This team has the talent to compete, but right now, it's mostly their quarterback play holding them back. They'll still be competitive for the AFC South with Indy, but if Indy beats Seattle, then Houston shouldn't be considered favorites by any means.

17. Baltimore Ravens

Things could be going a lot better for the defending Super Bowl champions. But they can turn it around. They've got an elite quarter....ok, sorry, I couldn't even finish that sentence. Joe Flacco has thrown just 5 TDs to 7 INTs (with an additional two lost fumbles in there). Granted, five of those interceptions came against Buffalo (a game they still could have won despite Flacco's bad play). Flacco is not the main problem in Baltimore, but it's obvious at this point the guy is not actually an elite quarterback. (Not all Super Bowl winning QBs are "elite.") He has only one game so far in which he accounted for more TDs than turnovers, and that was just a 1 TD game. The other game with no interceptions? He threw for 0 TDs and lost a fumble. Defensively, it isn't much different in terms of overall talent than last year, but they are statistically middle of the pack (almost exactly - they're ranked 12th through 17th in the major categories). Part of the problem though has been the coaching. How they run just nine times on a Buffalo defense that is giving up 122 rushing yards a game is beyond me. That, and the lack of discipline showed late in that game by veteran conspiracy theorist dumbass Terrell Suggs is hurting this team. (I get that Manuel was killing clock and Suggs is entitled to lay a lick on him if he delays taking a knee, but Manuel gave himself up just before the hit. The hit itself is fine, by you can't then roll over and toss the quarterback. You gotta know they're gonna call that!) Since Suggs seems to have someone else to play for his poor second half performance in the Super Bowl, I wonder who he'll blame for the Ravens poor performance in the first quarter of the season? Probably Tom Brady, actually. Good news for Baltimore though is they're in an inconsistent division. They're 2-2 with only one divisional game out of the way. They can still win this division.

18. Dallas Cowboys

It feels like we're never going to stop hating Tony Romo, but he's not the problem in Dallas right now. In fact, he's up there with Philip Rivers for the MVPNNPM of the first quarter (that's Most Valuable Player Not Named Peyton Manning). 8 TDs to 1 INT. Only 1 lost fumble. He's completing about 70% of his passes! Honestly? I never really now what the deal is with Dallas. Every year, they show they've got the talent to be a good team. Every year, they find a way to be inconsistent. And every year, they find a way to blow it and underachieve. The defense can't stop the pass, but they're not giving up a lot of points and are playing very well against the run. They're also running over 100 yards a game, which isn't bad. Jason Garrett has been and continues to be a problem for this franchise. His coaching leaves a lot to be desired. Bad news for Dallas, they have a fairly difficult schedule. Good news for Dallas, they're in the NFC East. They should still be considered favorites for that division, but 8-8 would probably be enough to win it.

19. Atlanta Falcons

The Falcons are a much better team than their 1-3 record indicates, and they have one of the better offenses in the league. But you won't win many games if you can't score touchdowns in the red zone. Matt Ryan has this offense as one of the most efficient offenses in the league, driving them into the red zone more than any other team - 18 times. So far, they've converted touchdowns on just seven occasions with seven field goals (for a team to produce more red zone trips, yet to be the 28th most efficient red zone team is problematic). An additional source of concern is the defense, which hasn't been particularly efficient either. They have yet to hold a team to under 23 points, a problem made worse by the fact they can't score touchdowns themselves. Some of these problems are due to injuries, but others are just sloppy play. Atlanta is still a playoff contender, but with New Orleans playing the way it does - and if Carolina somehow manages to sustain this jolt of energy - the NFC South might be a pipe dream for the birds. They should still be in the wild card picture though.

20. Cleveland Browns

Talk about a situation! First, they trade who many considered their best offensive weapon in a deal that many interpreted as Cleveland waving the white flag and trying to tank in order to "earn" a top quarterback in the draft. Next, they're playing Brian Hoyer and suddenly, they don't look that bad! Of course, this Browns defense is pretty underrated. In fact, they're top 10 in every statistical category - points allowed (8th), total yards allowed (3rd), passing yards allowed (9th), rushing yards allowed (4th). They're doing well on the takeaway front too. The problem is - as it usually is - the offense. Brandon Weeden has not looked good. Brian Hoyer though? Yes, he threw three interceptions in his first game, but he at least offset that by throwing three touchdowns. And in his second start, he looked extremely efficient throwing for 2 TDs to 0 INTs. He's completely almost 60% of his passes (compared to Weeden's 54%). They're still struggling to score points, but you don't need a prolific offense if you have a great defense. They are not a team to sleep on. Even more, they actually have a pretty favorable schedule. If Hoyer continues to play, and play in this manner, this very much could be a playoff team given the nature of the AFC North right now.

21. Philadelphia Eagles

The Philadelphia Eagles are revolutionizing the NFL right now. I'm not sure how, exactly. They're 1-3. Haven't scored more than 20 points in two straight weeks. Have one of the league's worst defense. Are minus 2 in turnover differential. And they are running just a few players more than the league average (between 65-70).  But, I'm assured they are revolutionizing the NFL. To be fair, they have put together one of the most efficient offenses behind Michael Vick who seems to have a handle on...well..the football. That's refreshing after last year's fiasco.  Fortunately for the Eagles, they play in arguably the worst division in football.

22. Carolina Panthers

 I want so badly to believe that Ron Rivera has finally figured out that coaching not to lose is more likely to mean you are not going to win. His overly conservative play calling cost this team in the first two weeks - in particular against Buffalo. This is another team that is two plays away from being 3-0, but instead are 1-2 - in large part from coaching. Rivera seemed to get a grasp on it in Week 3, with his bold decision to go for it on 4th and goal, culminating in a touchdown. Carolina's offense still lacks any noticeable flow or rhythm, and their lack of receiving talent is definitely hurting Cam Newton - who in the first quarter appears to be much more grown up than last year. They are running the ball well, however, and they've very quietly put together an excellent defense. A lot has been said of their pass defense, which is the weakness, but all things considered, they've given up the 12th fewest yards in the air and are allowing only 12 points per game. (I know the Giants are god awful right now, but to shut out even the Eli Manning to Victor Cruz connection for an entire game is still impressive.) This team can be competitive this year, but it ultimately depends on Rivera. If he continues to coach not to lose, he will succeed in losing his job along with most games.

23. Arizona Cardinals

So much was made of the acquisition of Carson Palmer for Oakland. Palmer, to be sure, is an upgrade from their previous quarterbacks, but he's 1) not really the answer and 2) not really a long term solution.  It's nice to have someone who can actually get the ball to Larry Fitzgerald, but Palmer is too inconsistent. Completing 57% of your passes and throwing 6 INTs to 4 TDs isn't going to cut it. Palmer isn't the only problem offensively. They have no ground game. With a bad running game and a mediocre passing game that can't score points, it's a lot to put onto that defense. And it is a solid defense, but they're not good enough to mask the offensive woes.

24. Washington Racists

Washington has not looked particularly good in games, but they've had flashes offensively. Robert Griffin III is obviously not comfortable, no matter what he says in the press conferences. He's starting games slowly and when you watch him run, you can just see the indecision and lack of confidence. What's hopeful so far though is that he's been pretty good in the second halves of games. And now that they're running the ball better, it could open things up. The injury to Alfred Morris could be big though if that winds up affecting his season. For all the attention RGIII gets for this season's shortcomings, it's the defense that really more a source of concern right now. Keeping in this year's NFC East theme, it's one of the worst in the league. They have the second worst rush defense, have allowed the second most total yards, and are allowing nearly 30 points a game. I'm not sure they would have won that game in Oakland if Matt Flynn realize that being quarterback means you're allowed to throw the football though. Then again, they play in the NFC East, so they have a shot to win the division even after starting 1-3.

25. New York Jets

What tends to get lost in all the hubbub surrounding the circus that is the New York Jets is that they still very much have a top tier defense. They've allowed an average of just 79 rushing yards and just over 200 passing yards per game. To be fair, for all the crap the Patriots take for playing inferior opposition, the Jets are in the same boat. Both teams played the Buccaneers and Bills. Both teams won those games. Running back Bilal Powell's stock is on the rise and they do run the ball pretty well. Offensively, rookie quarterback Geno Smith provides many of the same problems as Mark Sanchez did last year: bad decisions and dumb turnovers. Still, their offense is strangely middle of the pack in terms of statistics. They're putting up decent numbers. Except when it comes to two key categories: points and turnover differential. Through the first four weeks, they are averaging just 17 points a game (4th worst in the league) and have a minus 10 turnover differential (only the Steelers have a worse differential, while only the Giants have more giveaways). It's really tough for a defense to make up for all that. If the receivers could get open more consistently and catch the ball more often, this Jets team could be a playoff team. Unfortunately, they're a few years (and a coach) away from that. Smith is still a big question mark, but it is important to remember that he's just a rookie on a bad team that has no real offensive weapons. (Not suggesting he's anywhere near Andrew Luck, Robert Griffin, or Russell Wilson, but those guys all had at least one offensive playmaker.) Too early to call on Geno Smith.

26. Minnesota Vikings

If you want to beat the Vikings, you gotta focus on the passing. And by that I mean, you gotta throw on them, and you gotta let them try to throw on you. They have a bad pass defense, and their passing game under Christian Ponder has looked horribly inconsistent. Adrian Peterson is obviously the key to their offense, and they do have some great talent at the receiver position. I happen to be a believer in Matt Cassel - in the right system. A smart coach with a good system can win with Cassel.  They had an excellent game plan and Cassel played very efficiently, though it did take most of the first half to brush the rust off. He has a better deep ball than Ponder, completed nearly 65% of his passes, and most importantly, threw 2 TDs to 0 turnovers. Ponder isn't playing very efficiently. Completing 59% of his passes for 2 TDs to 5 INTs with 1 fumble lost. A 1:3 score to turnover ratio is not what this Vikings team needs. Word is, Ponder will start if he's healthy off the bye. I'd say that when you have one of the league's worst defenses, you don't really want a guy who will turn it over. Ponder had 100 attempts through three games and you can't help but wonder why he's throwing it more than 30 times a game when Peterson is your bread winner? Cassel attempted 25, and that's about right for a Minnesota quarterback.

27. Oakland Raiders

This Raiders team is better than people think it is. They've got a solid defense and a solid running game.  When Terrelle Pryor is in, they at least look like they can score points (even though they struggle on that front). Though he has as many INTs as TDs (only 2 each), he is also very quietly completing 65% of his passes, plus he's rushed for almost 100 yards so far. Matt Flynn started strong in his turn to start, but the second half was a different story. He looked slow and indecisive, as if he couldn't remember whether or not he was allowed to throw the ball. For a team that's 1-3 and treated like a joke, they have been the only team to really give the Broncos a challenge. (Pryor's quarterback rating that game, by the way, was 112.) I think this Raiders team can surprise some teams, but it seems like Darren McFadden is just never going to be healthy. Going into his sixth year, McFadden has never started more than 13 games in a season. The dude is dynamic when he's on the field. It's being on the field that's problematic.

28. St. Louis Rams

Few teams came in with higher expectations than the Rams. After finishing 4-1-1 in their division last year, people expected them to possibly contend for the division. The loss of Stephen Jackson hurts. A lot. Not only are they dead last in rushing yards, the average yards per game is pathetic. It's not even 50 a game. People have been down on Sam Bradford, but he hasn't really been the problem. The San Fran game an exception, he's been playing pretty well - completing almost 60% of his passes for 7 TDs to 3 INTs. Not only can they not run the football; they can't stop the run either. They're giving up just over 130 yards on the ground a game. This team is missing parts in big ways. It seems people thought they'd be fine without Jackson, but it clearly has.

29. Pittsburgh Steelers

This is a little bit like the Chicago case where the reputation of the team affects how we view the reality. Pittsburgh defense is not as good as it used to be. They struggle to keep teams from scoring and they can't stop the run. Additionally, they can't run. This is a Steelers team averaging under 60 yards on the ground. Ben Roethlisberger has struggled, but in large part due to his bad offensive line. He's thrown 5 INTs and been sacked an astonishing 15 times in four games. Otherwise, he actually is throwing the ball well. If they can run and protect Roethlisberger, they would be ok. Unfortunately, they can't right now. At this point though, it seems unlikely they can make a run for the division, especially given how competitive the AFC North seems to be.

30. Tampa Bay Buccaneers

Greg Schiano seems to be channeling his inner Rex Ryan - somehow turning a Tampa Bay team that shouldn't really be noticeable in either way into something of a circus. So much of the circus revolved around former starting quarterback Josh Freeman. First it was his demotion. Then it was his benching. Now it's the leak about his ADHD/Ritalin issue. Tampa has seemingly transformed into the Jets of the NFC. The other way that they are like the Jets is that if they just had a decent, consistent quarterback, they'd probably be fine. The defense is actually pretty good. They have the 15th best pass defense and the 9th best rush defense, and they have also allowed the 9th fewest points in the league. Offensively though, they can't throw the ball and they can't score points. They're averaging just 11 points a game. Safe to say, that won't cut it. Now there are stories indicating that Schiano is on the verge of losing that locker room. Tampa isn't going anywhere this year, but it seems pretty clear that Schiano is.

31. New York Giants

God. What is there to say about the New York Football Giants? They can't run (and also Tom Coughlin is committed to hurting the run game just to teach a lesson to David Wilson). They can't stop the run. They can't stop opposing teams from scoring. As unbelievable as it is, the Giants have allowed more points than any other team - including Jacksonville! How does that happen when you have Eli Manning, Hakeem Nicks, and Victor Cruz? Well, it starts up front. The offensive line couldn't block a bill in Congress. Manning has been sacked 14 times! Granted, half of those were in the first half of the Panthers game, but that's still absurd. Even worse is Manning's tendency to only look for the long ball, which contributes to both the sack problem and the turnover problem. Eli's thrown nine interceptions so far. And though people like to throw Wilson under the bus for the fumble problem, he hasn't actually fumbled the ball since the opening week against Dallas. Here's the thing: they can't protect the quarterback and they aren't committed to the run game. So why is Eli still looking for the deep ball? I know it's traditionally worked for him in the past, but it's not working now. They really need to consider giving more work to Wilson, or preaching to Eli to just get rid of it quickly. Run more slants and five yard outs. Dink and dunk can counter the lack of protection. This is a bad team. And they're only a couple years removed from winning the Super Bowl. But this is what the Giants do under Tom Coughlin. They either stink and don't make the playoffs, or they go all the way to win the Super Bowl. If you keep Coughlin, you just accept having a bunch of terrible seasons in between random Championship runs. But this is really starting to get embarrassing. They don't have the worst turnover differential (that's Pittsburgh), but they do have the most turnovers.  And to be honest, though this is the worst Eli has ever looked, I'm not so sure this isn't a more natural version than we've seen. If everyone is honest, Eli hasn't been a particularly great quarterback. He's had one elite caliber year. This looks like pre-2011 Super Bowl Eli. And that's bad when you don't have a defensive line. It doesn't help that they have a tough schedule.

32. Jacksonville Jaguars

There was an article on USA Today's site asking whether Alabama University could beat the Jacksonville Jaguars. Let's not beat around the bush here: the Jaguars are bad. Like, embarrassingly so (at least their mascot is sharing in it). But the worst NFL team will beat the best college team. It'd barely be a contest. The NFL players are just bigger and stronger and faster. It's funny to posit the match up as a means to discuss just how awful the Jaguars are, but the Jags are still an NFL team. Yes, they're averaging barely 7 points a game. Yes, they are last in the league in total yards. Yes, they are second to last in rushing yards. Yes, they are third to last in passing yards (wait...really? Who is worse? Oh yeah, Carolina and Tampa Bay.) Yes, they've been outscored 139-31. Yes, they have the worst rush defense in the league. Yes, they are minus 4 in turnover differential and only have a total of four takeaways. Yes, they have a quarterback duel between Chad Henne and Blaine Gabbert who have thrown for a combined 7 INTs to a total of 1 TD (that was Henne's). This team is awful. It's almost like new owner Shahid Khan is intentionally trying to sabotage the Jags in order to kill local interest so he can move the team to LA (or worse...London.) The commitment to Gabbert should not have extended beyond the second year, but to be fair to both he and Henne, there's very little about this team around them that is good. Khan apparently isn't planning to move the team as evidence by his commitment to build new scoreboards. Seems like his focus isn't right. Why build a scoreboard that will only ever read "Jags - 3"? But hey. Those new unis look good, at least.