Writers of Pro Football Prospectus 2008

11 Mar 2009

ESPN INSIDER: Is Edwards Good Enough For TO?

This week's ESPN Insider feature is an Insider exclusive -- it looks at the defensive effect upon AFC East quarterbacks, and what that says for their performance next year.

Posted by: Bill Barnwell on 11 Mar 2009

7 comments, Last at 14 Mar 2009, 10:47am by dbostedo

Comments

1
by JQ (not verified) :: Thu, 03/12/2009 - 12:30pm

If McNabb and Garcia aren't good enough for TO then Edwards has no chance

2
by KarlFA :: Thu, 03/12/2009 - 1:57pm

I don't understand why ESPN INSIDER articles are linked here. We can't read them unless we have INSIDER subscriptions...membership which would seem to imply that we're checking INSIDER on a daily basis.

Not to mention, I find it strange that I signed up (and paid) for Football OUTSIDERS premium membership, and can't actually access all of the FO work.

And yes, I'm bit--ing because I want to read this fu--ing article very badly. But, I'm a FO fan exactly for the reasons I don't subscribe to ESPN INSIDER (the paradox kills me by the way) and never will.

Ok, now that I'm done with that - I would think that Edwards wasn't good enough for the old TO that got open downfield and actually had a lot of YAC, etc. He's probably great for 36 year old TO, who mostly catches short passes and turns them into unsuccessful plays. A match made in heaven, really - for the Dolphins.

Karl, Miami

4
by Bill Barnwell :: Thu, 03/12/2009 - 10:00pm

Hi Karl,

It's certainly a weird deal, the Insider/Outsider thing. It entertains me too.

We've never had Premium articles on the site -- that is to say, we've never said "Hey, sign up for Premium and we'll write exclusive articles for you!" Premium members have had access to the Premium database, the gambling odds, and the 24-hour fantasy service. Never any articles that the rest of our readers couldn't read.

In addition, the majority of these articles -- certainly this one, for example -- are articles that would not have been written otherwise -- not because they weren't worth writing or because they weren't interesting, but because they weren't subsidized. As they're now being subsidized, we welcome the opportunity to write more frequently and produce more content.

We link these articles so that people who are ESPN Insiders can read them and know that they're on ESPN. We make it clear that they're Insider articles so that those people who aren't Insiders can know to steer clear.

6
by Federico Fellini Is Not Very Good (not verified) :: Sat, 03/14/2009 - 7:55am

Meh. I appreciate FO responding publicly to clarify the situation, but it still doesn't do non-insiders a whit of good.

3
by Keith (not verified) :: Thu, 03/12/2009 - 9:26pm

I was reading an old SI article today. It was about T.O. when he was growing up and his first years in the league. The article was published before or after his third year in the league, not exactly sure. The article mentioned how Jerry Rice, at 36, was always complaining about how he wanted the ball more. The 49ers had a young Terrell Owens and J.J. Stokes, who many saw as the next Jerry Rice coming out of college. T.O. actually said in the article that he did not want the focus on him, that he would not complain like that.

Skip ahead to when Terrell Owens is 36. He complains about not getting the ball more often on a team of other young receivers -- Crayton and R. Williams the receiver.

Rice changed teams and saw a small resurgence in his play because he was once again the main focus. Even though the Raiders had [an aging] Tim Brown to throw to, he was not the guy anymore.

All that being said, there are two questions: 1) Do aging, slowing receivers (or running backs) complain for the ball more because they feel they deserve it because of their past or because they do not realize they are slowing down?, and 2) Will T.O. experience the same 2-3 year resurgence at 36 that Rice got when he hopped the bay?

5
by pm :: Fri, 03/13/2009 - 1:00pm

This quote doesn't make sense.

"While a home run in baseball is always valuable, a two-yard gain on third-and-goal from the one is way more useful than the same yardage on first-and-10."

It's impossible to do that

7
by dbostedo :: Sat, 03/14/2009 - 10:47am

I think it was meant literally, not statistically. If the running back gains two yards, he's a yard into the endzone and has scored (hence the value). It would, of course, be recorded as a 1 yard run, even though the running back gained two yards.