Writers of Pro Football Prospectus 2008

02 Nov 2006

Week 9 Rundown: Rock Paper Scissors

This week, we discuss the Colts-Patriots matchup with Graham Walker, president of the World Rock Paper Scissors society. You'll also learn about the Colts sniffles theory, the Michael Vick Opinion-o-Matic, and the incredible prediction from the Week 2 rundown that may actually come true in Washington.

Posted by: Mike Tanier on 02 Nov 2006

80 comments, Last at 08 Nov 2006, 10:22am by Malene, cph

Comments

1
by dryheat (not verified) :: Thu, 11/02/2006 - 4:46pm

Man, slow day at work...I've been looking forward to this all day. Thanks. Now I'll go read it and see if my gratitude is justified.

2
by DGL (not verified) :: Thu, 11/02/2006 - 4:49pm

So if Sage Rosenfels and Cliff Parsley team up, does that mean we need Rosemary Clooney to sing the National Anthem?

Or should it be Morris Day and the Thyme?

3
by dirtydog61 (not verified) :: Thu, 11/02/2006 - 4:52pm

RPS or no RPS, as a Broncos fan I know one thing, Denver won't break its end of the cycle until they can get consistent pressure on Manning from its front 4. Profound -NOT - I know, but watching P-Money carve up an otherwise decent defense seemingly every year is getting old!

4
by White Rose Duelist (not verified) :: Thu, 11/02/2006 - 4:52pm

It must be Thursday, because I can't figure out if the interview at the start of the column is legit or satire.

5
by B (not verified) :: Thu, 11/02/2006 - 4:53pm

I had no idea there was an official rock-paper-scissors strategy guide. I'd buy it, but I've yet to find a flaw in my strategy of "good old rock, nothing beats rock."

6
by dryheat (not verified) :: Thu, 11/02/2006 - 5:00pm

Well, this part: The whole team is struggling to find itself. They've lost three of their last four games, and they've become the heartbreak kids in recent weeks: their last three games (two wins and a loss) contradicts itself, and the Raiders DC is Rob Ryan, but after further review, my appreciation stands as called.

At my home computer, I have the official RPS homepage bookmarked, so I know it's out there. Surprisingly, the winning strategy amounts to cheating.

7
by jonnyblazin (not verified) :: Thu, 11/02/2006 - 5:23pm

I'm guessing most Ravens fans are freaking out over this weeks matchup vs Cincy, I know I am. Ever since that 4th quarter shredding in 2004 (week 13) that effectively bumped the Ravens out of the playoffs, Carson Palmer has given me nightmares. I've got a bad feeling that Palmer will rediscover his 2005 form against the Ravens, a team he has owned the past 3 times he's played them.
My only hope is that the Bengals will have protection problems, which isn't that far-fetched this year at least...

8
by Mako Shawk (not verified) :: Thu, 11/02/2006 - 5:48pm

P. Manning's performance in DEN last week might be a trap for those who predict a similar outcome for week 9.

Yes, the DEN-DEF has been stingy all year, but their offense is nothing like that of NE. Thus IND's time of possession should be less than it was in DEN (resulting in less opportunities for Peyton).

Also, the NE-DEF's 3-4 scheme, complimented with their perpetual phantom blitz packages should be effective.

Add a home crowd, loud enough to hinder Peyton as he audibles ("Playhouse 90") under center, along with possible bad weather conditions, and we just may see A. Vinatieri as IND's savior at his homecoming game!

Why I love the "OVER" in this game, is another story in itself...I'll digress...Burp!

9
by PatsFan (not verified) :: Thu, 11/02/2006 - 6:02pm

Pats are now up to 19 players listed as questionable -- the 17 from yesterday plus Light and Maroney. Cassell has been added as a probable.

10
by Ferg (not verified) :: Thu, 11/02/2006 - 6:03pm

dryheat, what is the winning strategy, exactly?

11
by James (not verified) :: Thu, 11/02/2006 - 6:04pm

They've lost three of their last four games, and they've become the heartbreak kids in recent weeks: their last three games (two wins and a loss)

Aroo?

12
by Rich Conley (not verified) :: Thu, 11/02/2006 - 6:09pm

9

I can't wait till BB lists the entire 45 man roster as Probable or Questionable.

13
by Marko (not verified) :: Thu, 11/02/2006 - 6:10pm

Actually, he could do that for the whole 53 man roster. Why limit it to 45?

14
by dryheat (not verified) :: Thu, 11/02/2006 - 6:12pm

I'm glad you asked. The winning strategy is to have a clenched fist, then as you're bringing your arm forward, look to see what your opponent is throwing. If he shows paper, quickly extend your second and third fingers to deftly turn your rock into scissors.

15
by Independent George (not verified) :: Thu, 11/02/2006 - 6:18pm

#14 - Wow. So rock really does beat everything.

16
by Harry (not verified) :: Thu, 11/02/2006 - 6:20pm

#9,

this is getting ridiculous. I assume the Colts will now see the Pats 19 and raise them another 2, plus put Peyton on the "probable" list.

17
by Malene, cph (not verified) :: Thu, 11/02/2006 - 6:21pm

re 13, I think he could even list players on the PUP list as probable.

18
by Ken of All Kens (not verified) :: Thu, 11/02/2006 - 6:35pm

Alright, everybody who Googled rock-paper-scissors within the last hour(just to see), please raise your hands.

19
by Electronics (not verified) :: Thu, 11/02/2006 - 6:38pm

Finally a sports writer with some humor, independent style, and "no fear" comments. Keep it up. I find most others to be booooring!!!

20
by Rich Conley (not verified) :: Thu, 11/02/2006 - 6:47pm

Honestly, I'm surprised more teams dont play with the injury report like BB and Polian do. Theres absolutely no advantage to telling an opponent who they have to gameplan for.

As to BB, I think he likes to take the catagories very literally. If theres any pain, even a little normal soreness, you're probable, and if theres even the slightest big of question, you're questionable.

21
by Bobman (not verified) :: Thu, 11/02/2006 - 6:58pm

I am personally waiting for BB to put a few coaches on the "probable" list with headset related injuries. Dungy woudn't dare copy that, unless next time they play NYJ he puts one of the Jets' admin guys on the injury list to keep Polian from slapping him silly. And hell, what's to keep BB from putting his opponents on the injury list??? I can just see it,"This week New England lists 47 Patriots players as questionable and sixteen Colts players as questionable." In a counter-move, Dungy lists Rodney Harrison as "probable, with a mild case of disrespect."

And according to Graham Walker and the RPS game theory, to beat the rock, Indy has to think and act like paper. Hmmmm. Calling Mister Miyagi for some tutoring.

Done and done, Indy is paper, at least on defense.

22
by kubiwan (not verified) :: Thu, 11/02/2006 - 7:04pm

this decade's equivalent of the Niners-Cowboys matchups of the 1980s and 1990s.

Though this rivalry has spawned the endless Manning-Brady debate, I dont recall a similarly large Young-Aikman debate back then. Is my memory faulty (I wasn't as big an NFL fan back then)? If not, why wasn't there such a huge QB debate? Was one almost universally regarded as better? If so, which one?

My pet theory: Everyone was too busy comparing Young to Montana to worry about Aikman comparisons.

23
by B (not verified) :: Thu, 11/02/2006 - 7:13pm

I think the Brady/Manning is better compared to the Aikman/Favre rivalry. Aikman had the better supporting cast and the rings, while Favre had the MVP awards but wasn't considered a "winner" because his team kept losing to the Cowboys in the playoffs.

24
by GlennW (not verified) :: Thu, 11/02/2006 - 7:19pm

> I am personally waiting for BB to put a few coaches on the “probable� list with headset related injuries.

It's pretty humorous overall, but I am getting tired of it. I wish that the NFL would release a statement letting us know which rules will and will not be enforced. Sometimes I think Kraft/Belichick run the league though...

25
by Malene, cph (not verified) :: Thu, 11/02/2006 - 7:21pm

Bobman, I think the proper talking head terminology is cutting out the "injury" part:

"Dean Pees is probable with a headset".

Which would pave the way for "Art Shell, questionable with a headset".

or "Marty Schottenheimer, probable with a playbook".

26
by Bobman (not verified) :: Thu, 11/02/2006 - 7:30pm

Malene, you are of course right with the jargon. Questionable with an elbow. Really, why, I have TWO! I must, therefore, be doubtful.

I love (sort of) when it's a concussion, because it often just says "head." Is that headaches? Dizzyness? Head-case? Stupidity? Or something a little more pornographic?

I think that's Montae Reagor's this week (2 wks after a rollover car accident, in which he had a 30+ stitch laceration on the back of his head and surgery to repair a broken eye socket). "Head" just doesn't cut it, anywhere except the NFL.

27
by passerby (not verified) :: Thu, 11/02/2006 - 7:33pm

The other day, at the start of a press conference, a reporter asked BB how he's doing and BB replied: "I'm probable. Day to day."

28
by zip (not verified) :: Thu, 11/02/2006 - 7:34pm

#25

ROFL

29
by Rich Conley (not verified) :: Thu, 11/02/2006 - 7:35pm

Glenn, I dont see whats the problem, and how they could enforce the rule.

I also dont feel its any worse than the teams that list 2 players as OUT, and no one else on their list, when its obvious that some players are day to day.

If they put restrictions on questionable, and say that only 50% of your questionable players can play, no one will use it.

Now, while I think its silly that Brady is listed as Probable all the time, he did sit out a game last year. It was against miami, and while the game really didnt matter, it may also have been used as a rest for Brady's shoulder. I just think the whole idea of an injury report is dumb.

30
by Sophandros (not verified) :: Thu, 11/02/2006 - 7:45pm

Does anyone remember Alex Kidd in Miracle World on the old Sega Master System and how he had to fight certain bosses via RPS?

31
by PatsFan (not verified) :: Thu, 11/02/2006 - 7:54pm

Re: 24

Telling the league which rules will/won't be enforced is Polian/Dungy's job.

32
by PatsFan (not verified) :: Thu, 11/02/2006 - 8:00pm

Re: #25

You've got the thread winner so far!

:)

33
by GlennW (not verified) :: Thu, 11/02/2006 - 8:10pm

I know that the injury list rule or standard is not generally enforceable, and I'd prefer that the league just get rid of it. But when a team consistently makes a farce of the list, even to the point of tweaking the opponent or the league ("you're making us do this, so here you go"), some common sense is in order. Yes, I don't know what you could do about it, but as a fan, even a public reprimand would give me some satisfaction. I believe that teams have gotten into some (minor) trouble when an unlisted player didn't show up on the list at all, etc.

34
by GlennW (not verified) :: Thu, 11/02/2006 - 8:12pm

Sorry, make that: I believe that teams have gotten into some (minor) trouble when an unlisted player didn’t play in the game at all, etc.

35
by Jeremiah (not verified) :: Thu, 11/02/2006 - 8:13pm

Re: #8

Denver's offense didn't have much problem holding the ball. I guess their only problem was scoring too quickly, but I don't see NE scoring any less quickly (if they're scoring at all), so TOP shouldn't be that big a deal.

Crowd noise probably won't be an issue either. Did you notice how loud it was in Denver last week? Or in other stadia the Colts have played in this year, e.g. New York?

As for the other things - yeah, they might be problems, although the weather is supposed to be pretty nice, albeit in the low 30s or so.

36
by DavidH (not verified) :: Thu, 11/02/2006 - 8:22pm

Yes, the DEN-DEF has been stingy all year, but their offense is nothing like that of NE. Thus IND’s time of possession should be less than it was in DEN (resulting in less opportunities for Peyton).

If Peyton has less opportunities, then so will Brady, so I'm not sure how this is much of a bonus.

37
by Pat (not verified) :: Thu, 11/02/2006 - 8:56pm

Glenn, I dont see whats the problem, and how they could enforce the rule.

Well, the problem is that they're skirting around doing something illegal. The injuries are reported partly for legal purposes, since they're workplace injuries.

Luckily, almost all football players have some injuries by this point.

38
by CaffeineMan (not verified) :: Fri, 11/03/2006 - 1:10am

"I am personally waiting for BB to put a few coaches on the “probable� list with headset related injuries."

"Art Shell, questionable with a headset."

Indeed. I can't think of anyone more questionable with a headset at this point than Art. I'm dyin'. Bobman with the sweet jump set and Malene from outside with the kill...

39
by Jim (not verified) :: Fri, 11/03/2006 - 1:31am

Re: 38
Dennis Green?

40
by FizzMan (not verified) :: Fri, 11/03/2006 - 1:44am

#38 et. al. - Shouldn't it be, "Art Shell, doubtful with a headset"?

41
by Stillio (not verified) :: Fri, 11/03/2006 - 2:46am

"...playing before their intimate gathering of fans in the tarp-covered confines of Alltel stadium." Me and my 65,000 friends are very upset at your ignorance of the ticket sales situation in Jacksonville.

42
by Matthew Furtek (not verified) :: Fri, 11/03/2006 - 3:08am

Can someone explain to me why the league fined Ocho Cinco? So they promote Chad Johnson, his clips are run on ESPN/NFLN/radio all the time, and then when he does the brilliant Ocho Cinco nameplate, BEFORE the game... they are going to fine him?

43
by Matthew Furtek (not verified) :: Fri, 11/03/2006 - 3:11am

One note on WAS-DAL. Santana Moss is currently listed as questionable and radio reports were saying he's out. I hope to see Campbell by halftime.

Gibbs has stated that Brunell will start through Philadelphia game, but really... what is the point? If they lose their 6th game at Dallas they are pretty much out of the NFC playoff race. Many would argue they are out of it right now.

44
by Matthew Furtek (not verified) :: Fri, 11/03/2006 - 3:26am

Second note on WAS-DAL.

This will be the first week Shawn Springs and Carlos Rogers will be starting opposite each other. Terrell Owens has had problems against this Washington secondary, particularly Sean "I broke your finger in week 2" Taylor. Terry Glenn has burned the secondary regularly however. I expect Parcells to have a few wrinkles... he always had, and if Glenn/TO aren't going, I don't really expect much of the 'Skins run defense, even though their DTs will be healthy. Hard to be optimistic as a 'Skins fan.

45
by Bobman (not verified) :: Fri, 11/03/2006 - 3:52am

39 I'd say Dennis Green is dangerous with a headset, but that's another story altogether. After all, he is who we think he is.

By week 17 the report should read "Dennis Green, out, rectum/foot." ('course they'll have to yank his head out to fit Bidwell's foot in.)

46
by Mako Shawk (not verified) :: Fri, 11/03/2006 - 5:16am

Re: 35...and maybe 36...

TOP (Time of Possession) WILL be a problem...considering my WIFE could stop the rush better than the IND-DEF...and NOBODY has YET to figure out where N.E.'s PHANTOM BLITZ will RE-COUNTER Peyton's "Playhouse 90" from...and Brady WILL use play action at the RIGHT time(s)!!!

Again...Take Vinatieri...and the OVER!!!

...Burp!

47
by big_adventure (not verified) :: Fri, 11/03/2006 - 7:46am

29 - Rich,

Sorry man, Brady started that game, played a series or two and was replaced by R. McFumbles. I was there. I'm remembering your statement in the DVOA thread about how INT's in the endzone are usually returned for a TD, then Aaron bringing up that 6 out of hundreds have actually been returned for TDs between 2001 and 2005.

I'm left with four possible conclusions: either you just like to shoot your mouth off with absolutely no factual basis, you are too lazy to bother typing "Tom Brady" into google to see that he played 16 reg season games last year, you somehow thought that the team played 17 games last year and thus 16 meant he didn't play in one or you think that the rest of us are stupid enough to miss something that easy.

Ah, well, I hope that's working out for you.

-Sean

48
by dryheat (not verified) :: Fri, 11/03/2006 - 10:15am

Since probable means "virtual certainty player will play", I don't see the problem of listing anybody as probable.

Also, it's a lot easier to forecast injury limitations on Friday than on Wednesday, after a couple more practices and days of treatment. Usually (though not it this week's pissing match) the Friday injury list is shorter than the Wednesday edition.

49
by DaveO (not verified) :: Fri, 11/03/2006 - 10:40am

I'm surprised that people aren't talking about what I believe to be the biggest story this week; apparently, The Big Guy has turned His back on Shaun Alexander...

50
by zip (not verified) :: Fri, 11/03/2006 - 11:14am

#47

While I appreciate your attempt to "pwn" Rich (no one loves a little e-pwnage more than I do), I think it's pretty reasonable to say Brady "sat out the Miami game" because he played 1 or 2 possessions. But that's just me.

51
by Wanker79 (not verified) :: Fri, 11/03/2006 - 11:17am

I'm so goddamned sick of both the Indy and NE hype-machines that I find it hard to pick a side to root for. That being said, just from a poetic justice point of view, this game HAS to end on either a Gostkowski missed FG or a Vinatieri made FG.

52
by James, London (not verified) :: Fri, 11/03/2006 - 11:32am

This from a Boston Herald story on Brady & Manning being friends off the field:

“It doesn’t surprise me they’re close,� Patriots safety Rodney Harrison said. “In my opinion, they’re the two best quarterbacks in the league, and not by mistake. They handle themselves in a respectful manner and are really the face of the NFL.�

So even Brady & Manning have the Utmost Respect for Rodney Harrison!

53
by dryheat (not verified) :: Fri, 11/03/2006 - 11:41am

#51,

I'd love for the game to end on a Vinitieri Field goal while time expires....making the final score 28-3.

Having daydreams about Homer's Super Bowl touchdown for Denver.

54
by Rich Conley (not verified) :: Fri, 11/03/2006 - 11:41am

47. Sean, grow up.

My point was, he was pulled. Bellichek could use the fact that he was pulled to justify the fact that he was listed as injured. IE "We pulled him because he was hurt, so why do you have a problem with us listing him as hurt"

My point is, as long as bellichek is over listing, theres pretty much nothing the NFL can do about it, because hes following the rules.

55
by Independent George (not verified) :: Fri, 11/03/2006 - 12:52pm

#53 - My favorite is still when Hank Scorpio gave Homer the Denver Broncos as a bonus for his work on the nuclear reactor.

"Oh... the Denver Broncos?!"

"I think that owning the Denver Broncos is very nice."

"Marge, you just don't know anything about football."

56
by dryheat (not verified) :: Fri, 11/03/2006 - 1:25pm

Now time to sit back and wait for an NFL franchise.

Sir, I represent the Arizona Cardinals, and --

Keeeeeep walking.

57
by MJK (not verified) :: Fri, 11/03/2006 - 1:35pm

A few points:

1). Damn you, Malene, cph, for making me laugh so hard at work!

2). I googled RPS. Wow, people take it way too seriously.

3). Belichick got in trouble last year (or maybe it was two years ago) for not disclosing enough injury info (shocking, I know). So now he follows the letter to an extreme. By listing everyone even slighly questionable as "questionable", he can play or not play anyone he wants. And it makes it harder to gameplan against them. It does provide a slight edge.

4). It also protects the players. After seeing the Cowboys intentionally take Jim Kelly out of the Superbowl with a cheap shot a few years ago by targeting his injury, or reading one of those "what goes on in a pile" articles, or hearing the name Bill Romanowski, I decided there's no lengths some coaches or players will not stooop to (sorry, mixed metaphor), and they less they know about how to exacerbate an injury that a player plays on, the better.

5). There's also some legal issues involved. Belichick said once that employers are not allowed to publically release medical information about their employees without the employee's consent, which is true. (Technically, the entire injury report requirement is illegal, I believe, and I'm surprised that the player's union hasn't tried to put a provision into the CBA to get rid of it). Belichick has said that if a player wants to discuss his injury with the media, that's their business, but he won't. Of course, he doesn't generally allow his players (other than Brady, Harrison, Dillon, and sometimes Bruschi) to talk to the media...

6). All that being said, I do find it very frustrating as a fan. Why even have injury reports when they're meaningless? And the Colts and Pats make them meaningless in one direction; other teams go in the other, listing no one unless their bone is sticking out through the skin.

58
by MJK (not verified) :: Fri, 11/03/2006 - 1:41pm

One significant fact that hasn't been mentioned about the Pats injury report is who is not on it. Daniel Graham has been injured and missed about the last four games, and if there was any chance he was not going to play this week, he would be listed (heck, everyone else is). The Pats didn't run at all against the Vikings last week not just because of the Vikings' run D, but because two of their best run blockers--Neal and Graham, were out. Neal is still listed as injured, so who knows if he'll play, but if Graham is back, that bodes well for the Pats rushing attack on Sunday.

59
by DaveO (not verified) :: Fri, 11/03/2006 - 1:51pm

58:

Have no fear, MJK; if the sun rises on Sunday, then that bodes well for the Pats rushing attack.

60
by Malene, cph (not verified) :: Fri, 11/03/2006 - 2:08pm

re 59: actually, I'm pretty sure we can run on the colts even in the dark.

61
by B (not verified) :: Fri, 11/03/2006 - 2:10pm

60: I hope so, cause it's a night game.

62
by brian (not verified) :: Fri, 11/03/2006 - 2:34pm

Mark my words if the pats don't get away with holding and bumping the colts receivers this game is pretty much over. After this game they'll be talking about the patriots inability to stop the pass not the colts inability to stop the run.

63
by dryheat (not verified) :: Fri, 11/03/2006 - 2:55pm

#62, phenomenal pre-emptive strike.

64
by P. Luxx (not verified) :: Fri, 11/03/2006 - 3:53pm

Rushing, schmushing. The Broncos ran just fine against the Colts. How'd that work out for them?

Why would the Pats want to eat up lots of clock early on, when they're up against an offense that can score at will and in seconds? Won't happen unless the Pats are up by AT LEAST two scores.

I think Corey Dillon is about the most underrated and under-utilized guy in the NFL this season (up to now... that will change...) and I'd love to see him shreading the Colts linebackers, but it's not going to happen without a few stops on defense and some quick scores from the Patriot PASSING GAME early.

I look for a shootout.

65
by Rich Conley (not verified) :: Fri, 11/03/2006 - 4:25pm

64, I agree. Lots of mixing it up from the patriots, with lots of passing early.

But if they get up by 10 points at any point, and get the ball, expect one of those 17 play, 11 minute drives that theyre famous for.

66
by Jeremiah (not verified) :: Fri, 11/03/2006 - 4:35pm

Impossible to mount a 17-play 11 minute drive against the Colts with the defense playing so badly. A team should be expected to score in no more than 10 plays against the Colts. :p

67
by DaveO (not verified) :: Fri, 11/03/2006 - 4:52pm

66:

It's funny 'cause it's true.

68
by Matthew Furtek (not verified) :: Fri, 11/03/2006 - 4:57pm

The hype of this game is killing me. Can we make a non Colts-Patriots thread? Does it matter who wins in the regular season? Does anyone else care about the other games? Charles H. Darwin!

69
by B (not verified) :: Fri, 11/03/2006 - 4:58pm

66: That's the beauty of the strategy, though, by the 4th Quarter the Patriots offense will be so worn out from running up and down the field they won't be able to mount a long, sustained drive. Incidentally, they learned this trick from Manning's little bro.

70
by DaveO (not verified) :: Fri, 11/03/2006 - 5:16pm

Seriously y'all, don't take this "unstoppable Colts Offense" hysteria too seriously. They've been plenty stoppable, particularly in the first half. If the Pats get an early lead, you'll be holding a pretty good hand...

71
by PatsFan (not verified) :: Fri, 11/03/2006 - 5:37pm

In light of the injury list games, is there any reason to believe the rumors that Sanders and Diem might not be able to play?

72
by Ben (not verified) :: Fri, 11/03/2006 - 6:17pm

I think Sanders missed practice again today. I'd pretty much count him out. I suspect Diem will play.

73
by NewsToTom (not verified) :: Fri, 11/03/2006 - 7:02pm

Re #30
Ah, memories. So much better than Super Mario Bros, too. But they didn't play RPS, they played 'janken.' I'm pretty sure the instruction manual called it that, confusing the heck out of us until we figured out 'Oh, that's rock-paper-scissors.' Jan-ken-pon, ai-ko-deshoo.

74
by JAT (not verified) :: Fri, 11/03/2006 - 7:10pm

Re #71

Sanders situation is actually a bit troubling, at least from the Colts perspective. The party line had been that he could've played a few weeks ago, but they were going to take the long view and hold him out til after the bye week to make sure he was completely healthy. Then it was pushed back a week. Then he practiced once last week and wasn't able to practice again. He said something along the lines that he was concerned that the knee didn't feel stable. This week, he didn't go Wednesday, practiced yesterday, and according to #72 didn't today. That leads me to believe that he won't play, and that there is something more serious wrong with his knee that the surgery didn't catch.

The way the Colts have been the last few years with injury information, it wouldn't shock me to hear that he had his leg amputated last week.

75
by Bobman (not verified) :: Fri, 11/03/2006 - 7:46pm

JAT
That would explain why his roster listing recently went from 5-9 210 lbs to 5-9, 175 lbs. It ain't slimfast.

Joking aside, I am really worried about him. They drafted him injured. When he's in there, he's a huge difference maker for them. But that's not often enough. Am I whining? He DID play 15 games last year. But over 2.5 seasons, he's missed a good dozen or so. I'm getting my boys jerseys soon and would consider getting a Sanders, but who the hell knows if he'll even be in football in two years at this rate?

I am not sure what offensive contracts expire this season, but I think next year they draft about 8 guys for the D again. Does Marques Colston have a brother at Hofstra who plays DT...? Might not pay off immediately, but having some consistency out there might help more than a new lineup each week.

76
by Carlos (not verified) :: Fri, 11/03/2006 - 9:45pm

Furtek - I'd talk about the Skins game, but I don't know what to say beyond "gack"

Gibbs has stated that Brunell will start through Philadelphia game, but really… what is the point?

Hasn't that been the question since they traded draft picks to sign the guy for a fortune?

Here's the complete list of things Brunell does better than your average second string QB:

Avoids throwing interceptions.

That's it. So combine that with a lousy defense, and there's not really much to say about this team or the game. The 'boys are gonna cream 'em.

77
by Zac (not verified) :: Sat, 11/04/2006 - 7:43pm

Glenn, I dont see whats the problem, and how they could enforce the rule.

The problem is that teams are skirting around the intent of the rule, which is to provide accurate information about injured players.

And the answer is simple. Probable is supposed to mean that the player has about a 75% chance of playing. Questionable is supposed to have a 50% chance of playing. Doubtful is supposed to have a 25% chance of playing. And players who are out have a 0% of playing.

In turn, the number of games missed by players on the injury report should be .25*P+.50*Q+.75*D+O. If the number of actual games missed is more than a certain number off, then you enforce whatever penalty you feel is appropriate.

78
by dryheat (not verified) :: Sat, 11/04/2006 - 10:28pm

#77, Incorrect. Probable means, per the NFL, "a virtual certainty to play." I'd have no problem with 53 people listed as "probable". I'm not quite sure why there is a "probable" list.

79
by centrifuge (not verified) :: Sun, 11/05/2006 - 4:18am

#78: It's basically a formal acknowledgement that the player is hurt in some way. Or that he possesses certain appendages and muscle groups, depending on the coach.

80
by Malene, cph (not verified) :: Wed, 11/08/2006 - 10:22am

this thread is probably dead now, but I found something interesting in a Mike Reiss piece:

As much as we make fun of Belichicks injury reports - and the wednesday reports are sometimes ridiculous - but looking at friday reports, he's so far listed 25 players as probable (75% chance) - 21 have played = 84%. 56 players have been listed as questionable (50% chance of playing), 29 have played = 51,7 %.
I'd say that's pretty close.