Weak signal/Mark Jalkanen
By Mark Jalkanen/DMG Web ColumnistIn the past, we have espoused the belief that the NFL is a quarterback-driven league and at the midpoint of the season we can clearly see the difference between the teams with quality quarterbacks and the teams who are desperately searching for a leader to follow.
There are currently 17 teams with winning records getting quality play from the most important position on the field. The Jets are the only .500 team in the league and are getting expectedly inconsistent play from rookie Mark Sanchez, and the other 14 teams are faced with varying degrees of uncertainty with regard to the future of the position and constitute the dregs of the league.
Focusing on the 14 teams, seven in the NFC and seven in the AFC, with losing records and weak signal callers, each is in a unique situation with some needing change and others on the hopeful road to quarterback stability and franchise improvement.
There are six losing teams that have to (which doesn't mean that they will) aggressively address the position in the offseason.
The Redskins (2-5) are losing with 2005 first-round pick Jason Campbell and since they were desperate to make a change during the offseason, there is no reason to expect the quarterback (or coach) to get a new contract and return in 2010. Expect Daniel Snyder to make a bold move (that will likely fail) to shore up the position.
St. Louis (1-7), Carolina (3-4), and Jacksonville (3-4), have likely gone far enough with Marc Bulger, Jake Delhomme, and David Garrard and change should be in the offing. If a quarterback is drafted by these teams, in 2010 the veterans could play part or all of the season; while the understudy studies. The brass in Carolina must be regretting the month of April when they paid taxes, gave Delhomme a five-year $42.5 million ($20 million guaranteed) extension, and traded away next year's first-round draft pick.
In Buffalo (3-5), Trent Edwards seems to be a favorite among the Bills staff and we can't figure out why, since he is 1-4 as a starter this year while his backup, Ryan Fitzpatrick, is 2-1. The Bills need to start over and the 2010 draft (more later) will be a good place to start.
The Browns (1-7) have started Brady Quinn and Derek Anderson and neither has done anything that would offer any job security. Perhaps the Brett Ratliff era should begin in Cleveland, but since the Eric Mangini regime is likely over, Cleveland should audition their guys for potential trades and let the new coach and GM choose a new beginning next year.
There are four losing teams that have recently addressed the position and need more time to make an accurate assessment of the potential of their man.
Detroit (1-6) drafted Matthew Stafford with the top overall pick last year and he has done enough, in limited duty, to provide hope that he may be a quality starter in the future.
The Bucs (0-7) drafted Josh Freeman with the 17th pick last spring and he will be making his first start this weekend and will be auditioning over the final nine games to hold onto the gig into the future.
When Chad Pennington went down for the year, Miami (3-4) turned to 2008 second-round selection Chad Henne. Henne will be the starter for the remainder of the season, so the Dolphins should know more and be able to determine if they need to draft another successor to Dan Marino.
With the untalented Chiefs (1-6), Matt Cassel is being paid based on one good year with the supremely talented Patriots. Cassel's KC contract is for six years/$63 million ($28 million guaranteed) and will pay him more than $40 million in the first three years. This is another contract that could come back to haunt the team and force it to avoid choosing a quarterback in the draft.
There are three losing teams that are giving a former high pick one more opportunity to show if they can play.
In San Francisco (3-4), Shaun Hill was benched and former top overall pick (2005) Alex Smith was given another opportunity to prove his worth. This could be his last chance, but at least the Niners should have a better idea by the end of the year if they need to address the position again.
Vince Young has taken the reins of the Titans (1-6) and has already led the team to its only win of the year. Since Young is scheduled for a $5 million raise and a $4.25 million roster bonus (total cap number over $14 million) the team has to determine if he is the future (and they already know Kerry Collins isn't) so they can avoid the payments and draft anew or pay the man and finally cash in (via wins) on his high draft position. Collins' new two-year $15 million ($8.5 million guaranteed) could make the position a salary cap albatross in 2010.
Related note: This week, the Titans travel to San Francisco in a matchup of two players who were the first quarterbacks picked in their respective drafts (Smith #1 overall in 2005 and Young #3 overall in 2006), ingloriously fell to the bench, and have been given a temporary reprieve.
In Oakland (2-6) there is no reason for the team to play anyone other than JaMarcus Russell. The former top overall pick (2007) had a good end to the 2008 season but hasn't been able to find his form this season. Another eight games should give the Raiders enough evidence to consider this the end of the Russell error or beginning of the Russell era.
The Seahawks (2-5) are a losing team that had some stability at the position but should be looking to add a quarterback in the future since Matt Hasselbeck has already missed all or part of three games this year.
The combined records of the 14 teams with leadership issues is a pathetic though predictable 26-76, so it is likely that the top 14 picks in the draft will be divided among these teams. Though Carolina's foolish April means that San Francisco owns two potentially high first-round choices and a trade with Denver also gives Seattle two chances to rectify their issues.
Though we'll never get an honest answer, it would be interesting to know how some of the above teams view the 2009 draft. One would presume that the Lions are satisfied with Stafford but would the Rams be in better shape if they had taken Sanchez with the second pick? Does the leadership in Kansas City wish that they would have saved their money and the 34th overall pick and taken Sanchez at number three instead of trading for Cassel? Would the Seahawks be in a more comfortable position with Sanchez instead of linebacker Aaron Curry? And last, and certainly least and lost, would the Browns still trade the rights to draft Sanchez to the Jets if they were afforded a Mulligan?
Rookie patience note: Terry Bradshaw threw six touchdowns and 24 interceptions his first season, Troy Aikman threw nine TD's and 18 picks, and Peyton Manning threw six TD's and 14 INT's. Also, in their first season, none of the above played the full schedule.
Each year brings another chance for teams to address the quarterback position and this year is no exception, and it could be exceptional. The 2010 draft could be quarterback-rich, with prospects including Jake Locker (Washington), Jimmy Clausen (Notre Dame), Sam Bradford (Oklahoma), Colt McCoy (Texas), Jevan Snead (Mississippi), Tim Tebow (Florida), and Tony Pike (Cincinnati), all creating a certain amount of excitement in draft rooms.
The teams mentioned above that obviously need quarterbacks should first get their long-term plans at coach and general manager in order. Keeping a coach/GM for one extra year often leads to a situation like Cleveland, where the old regime paid Anderson a ton of money, and then drafted Quinn in the first round, forcing the new powers to play leaders that they didn't choose and didn't fit their plans. On the other hand, the Falcons (Matt Ryan), Ravens (Joe Flacco), Lions (Stafford), and Jets (Sanchez), all made changes at the top before drafting new franchise quarterbacks and the results have been promising.
To determine the importance of the quarterback position, simply peruse the standings and look at the winning teams. These are the teams getting quality play from the most important position on the field. If you choose the half-empty route, then look at the teams with sub .500 records and assess the play that they are getting from their signal callers. Chances are, it will be weak.
WEEK 9 PREDICTIONS (18-18 overall)
NFC North (1-2 last week, 13-9 season)
Green Bay minus 9.5 at Tampa - A Packer team that should be playing angry arrives to face the Bucs, who didn't lose for the first time this season. Winless Tampa had a bye and will have rookie QB Freeman making his first start.
Arizona plus 3 at Chicago - The Bears' offensive line is worse than the Packers' unit (hard to believe) and we don't expect Kurt Warner to repeat this weekend's six-turnover performance in Chicago.
Seattle minus 10 versus Detroit - Without Calvin Johnson, the Lions have little offense unless the opposition does Dan Orlovsky imitations after interceptions.
Best Bets (1-1 last week, 5-9 season)
Houston plus 9 at Indy - The Texans will be playing in one of the biggest games in franchise history and their offense should keep them in the game.
PEEVE OF THE WEEK
Government paternalism and those who blindly follow without question and without regard for historical precedent.
When the Peeve senses a "we're from the government and we're here to help you" moment, we immediately begin asking questions (admittedly, we often don't like the answers) and the current health care debate is such a moment. In an effort to simplify, we offer a short "do you believe" quiz that deals with the macro issues rather than the minutiae of the plan, and ask you to answer each question honestly (if you lie you'll only be cheating yourself and your fellow taxpayer).
Do you believe that the government will do a good job of managing health care?
Direct government spending currently accounts for approximately 45 percent of all health care spending (up from 24 percent in 1960) and makes up approximately 25 percent of all government outlays so the government is running health care. They haven't been doing it very well. Medicare is $30 trillion underfunded and is projected to go bankrupt in 2017. Since the numbers are so staggeringly awful, and nearly impossible to comprehend, the Peeve offers a more personal touch. If we were to fill the unfunded gap, every human in this country would have to chip-in a mere $100k (only $300k for our household honey!) to bring the mismanaged program back to even (that doesn't include the $4 trillion for Social Security and the $12 trillion debt that is projected to rise by $1 trillion per year for the next decade). Our view is that they have had their chance and have delivered an insolvent, corrupt monstrosity (we're not referring to Fannie and Freddie at this time), that is pushing our nation to the brink of bankruptcy. Why would we allow them to run even more?
Do you believe that the government will actually reduce the cost of health care?
Our grand planners do have the ability to affect prices but only in the upward direction. Can you think of an example of our leaders actually lowering the cost of anything? Subsidies (farm, ethanol, etc.), protective tariffs (sugar, steel, etc.), and taxes (all of them), directly lead to higher prices for consumers, but nothing the government does trends prices in the opposite direction. If the clever folks on the hill have the ability to reduce prices, why not reduce the costs for all goods and services by 10% and give Americans an immediate 10% raise?
Oh yeah, there is also that basic economic law regarding supply and demand that seems to be ignored as regularly as the Constitution. Since the supply of care will essentially remain the same, while demand for services will go up, costs will rise. Using gasoline as an example, what would happen to the price of petrol if we added another 40 million drivers to the road tomorrow? The demonic oil companies would not be able to increase the supply to meet the demand so the evil free market would drive prices significantly higher to help counter the spike in demand. It is elegant in its simplicity and, apparently, confusing to a great many.
One way that the government could lower costs would be to get out of health care altogether. Programs such as Medicare and Medicaid have been major contributors to the rapid increase in health costs. For (simplified) example, if Medicare reimburses a physician $1,000 for a procedure that actually costs $1500 (like a hangnail) the folks who are not program members are charged $2,000 for the same procedure to make up for the revenue shortfall. In other words, when the government is reimbursing nearly half of all care at a reduced rate, the other half has to pick up the slack in the form of increased prices.
Do you believe that the government will accurately estimate the costs of the program?
In our Seymour Buts column (Sept. 22) we noted that, "in 1967, the House Ways and Means Committee conservatively estimated that Medicare costs would rise from an initial $3 billion in 1967 to $12 billion in 1990. Actual spending in 1990 topped that estimate by just a smidgen at roughly $110 billion." By now everyone (save the occasional ostrich) should be aware of the fact that government estimates are always wrong (for more examples, view the mentioned column in the archives), and usually by a significant margin, so why is anyone assuming (you/me) that the estimates will be accurate this time?
Do you believe that the program will be deficit-neutral?
Any spending while running a $1 trillion deficit (and carrying a $12 trillion debt) cannot be "deficit neutral" since the revenue could have been used to reduce the deficit/debt. It is astonishing that our leaders have the ability to ignore the elephant (and donkey) in the room and continue to spend, while making fallacious claims under the guise of misleading terms ("saved or created"), without regard for the future. At the current rate, interest payments on the national debt will account for nearly one-fifth of all government spending by 2020. In other words, interest payments alone (without addressing principal) will cost nearly as much as the government spends on health care, or defense, or Social Security, today.
Do you believe that people have the right to health care?
As we confirmed our first amendment rights of speech and press, we found nothing in the smoldering document outlining a right to health care. Rights don't magically materialize at the whim of a group of people who believe something, they were carefully constructed by a group of people who knew, and feared, something. A new right can be added (for example, women's right to vote with the 19th amendment) but there is a detailed process outlined in the ashes that lists the steps for doing so.
Do you believe that morally, this is the right thing to do?
Since we're fairly certain that you wouldn't like navigating with our moral compass, don't assume that we'd enjoy doing so by yours. Also, your morality and our wallet should never mix.
Do you believe that the quality of care will improve?
We return to the basic economic law of supply and demand to help explain the expected (by realists) downturn in quality of care. Much like adding 40 million new drivers to our highway infrastructure, what would happen if we added an additional 40 million patients to our current health care infrastructure? Expect more traffic which will lead to shorter visits, fewer tests, longer waits, etc. Expect rush hour at the doctor. Also expect many doctors to opt out of the program so they can forego the pleasure of dealing with the bureaucracy. Consider that only 50 percent (and dwindling) of physicians currently accept Medicaid because the massive amount of paperwork can't be justified when receiving a $25 reimbursement for an office visit.
Do you believe that your taxes won't be raised unless you make over $250k?
In 1966, the dawn of Medicare, our leaders promised that the payroll tax would not rise higher than 1 percent. It has predictably tripled. Expect your taxes to go up either via value added, national sales, medical, sugar, and vice (and everything nice) taxes etc. and expect a new misleading term to accompany the lie and obfuscate the truth.
Do you believe that you'll be able keep your plan?
Eventually, we'll all be on the government plan since it is virtually impossible for any private company to compete with an entity that has no profit motive, no cost of capital, different accounting standards, and has the implicit backing of Congress for funding needs and beneficial law changes (now we can discuss Fannie and Freddie). The "public option" will have the ability to run with massive ($ trillion) debt while the competition will be forced to operate responsibly, and therefore, unsuccessfully. As a glimmer of hope for private competition we offer FedEx and UPS as competitors to the US Postal Service, but do we really need an insurance version of the USPS?
Do you believe that any state will opt out of the public option?
No chance. It would take a bold state government to opt out and still ask its citizenry to pay for the national folly, however, such a state might benefit from attracting the best doctors, hospitals, researchers, etc. due to the absence of a smothering bureaucracy and onerous regulation.
One opt-out that we heartily endorse is the non-existent version that allows families, individuals, doctors, and businesses, to opt out of the plan entirely. Those in favor of "reform" would be forced to pay an additional 10% income tax to participate and those who opt out would be exempt. What kind of support would such a policy receive? The Peeve estimates that the "opt in" group would be almost non-existent since it is very easy to spend someone else's money and much more painful when you have to part with your own.
Do you believe that this is "reform"?
The definition of reform is to change to a better state, improve by alteration, to make better. Suffice it to say that we have our doubts. If by "re-form" they have created some perverse new government definition that actually means forms, forms, and more forms, then we concur.
If you are a true believer (or the above mentioned ostrich) then it is likely that you will ignore any evidence that contradicts your beliefs. We simply ask that when this debacle has brought the nation to the brink; and all of the above promises have predictably been broken, that you revisit those beliefs at the ballot box.
As the masses huddle around the hearth, burning the founding documents that were crafted so purposefully; we offer a final bit of hope for change. If this lunacy is implemented it could be a rock-bottom, watershed-type, moment that signals the end of the unwavering belief in the power of government to solve problems and the beginning of a widespread view of government as a problem perpetuator. If more people consider government the problem rather than the solution then the movement to extricate rather than interject could begin in earnest.
With the evidence outlined above, we can't figure out why that isn't already the case.
As Albert Einstein opined, "Insanity: Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."
Are we insane? If not, why do so many people expect it to be different this time?
INDISCRIMINATE MUSINGS
Maybe the government should start by changing something that they already control. The federal school lunch program is our children's ticket to obesity and diabetes and a drain on our health care system. If you fry it ,they will come.
Related: What costs are going up even more rapidly than health care?
College tuition, another fine mess created by those we mistakenly entrust to solve our problems.
The median income of families with at least one child has risen by 10 percent since 1979 and, during that same time period, tuition at public universities has jumped 187 percent.
As VP Joe Biden said, "It (tuition) exceeds health care in terms of escalation of costs relative to earning capacity."
Say it ain't so, Joe. Say it isn't another failed attempt by the government to reduce costs.
Samuel Clemens great exaggeration of the week: Vikings.com reported that former player Orlando Thomas had died. Shortly after, Orlando contacted the team to let them know that he was still alive.
In the last ten drafts there have been a total of 129 quarterbacks drafted, or about 13 per year.
Interestingly, there were 14 taken in the 2005 draft and seven are currently starting: Smith, Rodgers, Campbell, Kyle Orton, Anderson, Cassel, and Fitzpatrick. Two (Rodgers/Orton) have winning records.
The Packers once again teased the fans with a valiant comeback but were denied. Punx and his band of purple left town with a win, quite likely the division title, another six sacks, and a generous six-penalty parting gift.
That has not been cleaned up.
Pack fans should hope for a rematch in the playoffs which, if victorious, would constitute the ultimate revenge game.
The Chiefs and Rams have now lost 59 of their past 71 games.
The Rams broke their 17-game losing streak in Detroit using a fake field goal to overcome the embarrassment of turning a Stafford interception into two points for the home team.
The Dolphins brought their balanced attack to the Meadowlands and amassed 104 total yards (52 rushing/52 passing), allowed six sacks and scored one offensive touchdown on their way to defeating the Jets 30-25.
In the spring, GMAC was certified as a bank by the Treasury Department and was put through a stress test that concluded the lender needed to raise $11.5 billion more in capital by mid-November.
Surprise! Last week GMAC asked our deeply indebted uncle for another $12.5 billion of your tax dollars. Wow, we didn't see that coming. Now we wonder if the administration support this institution and when they do, how long before they come back for more? And more? And more?
ESPN college football analyst Bob Griese was suspended for suggesting that Juan Pablo Montoya was not among the top NASCAR drivers in the chase because he was "out having a taco."
The politically correct crowd jumps on these transgressions but this could simply have been a case of an old, white, humorless, guy attempting to be funny (we've now offended the old, the white, the humorless, and the guys).
Montoya (a Colombian) didn't seem nonplussed when he said, "I don't really care, to tell you the truth. Yeah, I don't. I could say that I spent the last three hours eating tacos, but I was actually driving a car. But that's ok, I don't care."
Car owner Felix Sabates (a Cuban) said, "I know Bob well, well, well, well. Bob would never say anything like that, that is a racial slur. That's just not him. Bob is not the funniest guy in the world, but he's straightforward."
Perhaps cafetero (coffee farmer) Juan Valdez is offended since Griese didn't utilize a coffee stereotype.
In 1981, Valdez and his mule became the official marketing logo for 100 percent Colombian coffee, and since over 560,000 Colombians depend on coffee for their livelihood, it would have been a nice plug for the national industry.
Related: Over 175,000 people consider Starbucks their employer.
The Medellin cartel could not be reached for comment.
Inigo Montoya, from The Princess Bride (see October 19 column), may now consider Griese to be a six-fingered man.
(Mandy Patinkin) Inigo Montoya: "Hello. My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die."
Everyone should relax and head to D.C. for a beer on the White House lawn. Perhaps a Corona.
Montoya is one of Musings' favorite drivers. He is a rarity, winning in Formula One, Indy/Champ car, and NASCAR. In fact, he has won the Monaco Grand Prix, Indy 500, and 24 Hours of Daytona, three of the most prestigious races in the world.
Only Mario Andretti and Dan Gurney have also won races in Indycar, NASCAR, and Formula One.
We often deride the PC movement, but the Redskins moniker is always the fallback position during such debates. If the team from D.C. would simply change their mascot to a potato everything would be correct and we could get back to politics.
In other Redskins news: The team has a new policy forbidding fans to enter the stadium with signs of any kind. "Any kind" is a kinder way to say keep your "Snyder Sucks!" banners hanging in your basement.
First, Snyder sticks it to the fans by putting such a horrible product on the field and then he silences their creative criticism, what's next?
We're sorry we asked. The Redskins also announced that they will no longer allow the television media to interview fans who are tailgating on FedEx Field property.
The equally perturbed fans in Cleveland are planning a protest for the Monday night game against Baltimore on November 16. Fans are organizing to enter the stadium en masse after the opening kickoff as a sign of bad will.
Browns owner Randy Lerner commented, "on the grounds of frustration and irritation with performance, then that's the medicine we are going to take, and I accept that."
Musings believes that Snyder is so close to the Constitutional fire raging in D.C. that he has been unduly influenced by our faux leaders and has chosen to ignore freedom of speech, assembly, and the press. Fortunately, for those in Cleveland, Browns ownership still allows dissent.
Gotta go, it's time to feed the cats a taco.
|
conservativechris
|
|
|---|---|
|
11-04-09 11:34 AM
|
"We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security." Dwight D. Eisenhower
|
|
MNYooper
|
|
|
11-03-09 2:01 PM
|
Another sad week to be a Packer Fan anywhere but especially in MN. I wish for a lot of things...but I am hoping for a rematch in the playoffs with a more favorable outcome. I mean who headbutts anymore?
|