Writers of Pro Football Prospectus 2008

31 Oct 2005

2005 Quick Reads: Week 8

Here's the latest edition of FOX Quick Reads: all the quarterbacks ranked by DPAR, along with the top running backs and wide receivers. Which of the 150-yard rushers tops this week's list? Actually, the answer is "none of them." Also this week: I quote Talmud, turn the Philadelphia Eagles fight song into the Cleveland Browns fight song, and officially kick off that great national debate, "Where will Aaron Brooks be a backup in 2006?"

Posted by: Aaron Schatz on 31 Oct 2005

41 comments, Last at 01 Nov 2005, 7:39pm by Mr. Miyagi


by TheJosher (not verified) :: Mon, 10/31/2005 - 7:36pm


by Nate (not verified) :: Mon, 10/31/2005 - 7:49pm

Has the whole world gone crazy? Who is that team represented by the fourth best QB of the week? I just don't understand.

by ABW (not verified) :: Mon, 10/31/2005 - 7:52pm

I was going to say Tampa Bay. I think every mediocre veteran QBs career has to go through Tampa at some point.

by dan (not verified) :: Mon, 10/31/2005 - 7:56pm

Allow me to nominate the Eddie Kennison note for Comment of the Year.

by Drew (not verified) :: Mon, 10/31/2005 - 8:02pm

Looks like Chad Johnson is going to have to give someone a "yes" on his famed checklist.

by T. Diddy (not verified) :: Mon, 10/31/2005 - 8:06pm

These rankings don't respect Denver enough.

by Theo (not verified) :: Mon, 10/31/2005 - 8:21pm

Seriously Aaron, you need a better picture in there. Fast.

by Theo (not verified) :: Mon, 10/31/2005 - 8:29pm

(Ben Roethlisberger, by the way, is number one in value per play, but he throws the ball half as much as everyone else.)

Uhm yeah. So? Doesn't the fact that he throws less, make it more impressive?

by Becephalus (not verified) :: Mon, 10/31/2005 - 8:58pm

It might make it more impressive (or it might just mean he is benefitting from not having to carry his team like some people have to). I does mean he is providing less value to his team.

by doktarr (not verified) :: Mon, 10/31/2005 - 9:04pm

Theo -

No, it certainly does not. If he were first in TOTAL value while throwing half as much, then that would be a hell of a lot more impressive, sure. As it is, he's very effective but he's doing a lot less to help his team win than other top QBs.

Mybe your confusion arises from the fact that when Aaron says "value per play" he means "value per passing play".

by LTA (not verified) :: Mon, 10/31/2005 - 9:12pm

Holy cow! DPAR says Favre played the 15th-best game by a qb this past week and was better than a whole bunch of qbs with at least 1 td and no picks. That ones a little surprising.

by scott (not verified) :: Mon, 10/31/2005 - 9:13pm

Where's Cody!!???

by Chance (not verified) :: Mon, 10/31/2005 - 9:13pm

I'm sure it was just a typo, but the Denver-Philly score was 49-21, not 48-21 :o

by LTA (not verified) :: Mon, 10/31/2005 - 9:20pm

Steven Jackson is third in receiving DPAR. Seems odd considering that the knock on him coming out of college was that he was a poor receiver out of the backfield. I'm guessing his #3 ranking is more a reflection of everyone else's suckiness than his greatness as a receiver. Or is SJ a better receiver than everyone thought?

by LTA (not verified) :: Mon, 10/31/2005 - 9:39pm

The strength of the Lion's defense is one thing you don't hear much about with their offensive struggles. All those first-rounders on offense and it is the defense that keeps the team in games. 2nd in passing defense? Amazing. Really, if the offense was anywhere near worth what they are paying all of those first rounders then this would be a pretty good team.

by Kibbles (not verified) :: Mon, 10/31/2005 - 9:45pm

Not only does Burress lead the league in offensive PI penalties with 4, he also leads the league in uncalled offensive PI penalties with 97. Tony Gonzalez is a distant second, with a mere 52.

by Starshatterer (not verified) :: Mon, 10/31/2005 - 9:49pm

I’m guessing his #3 ranking is more a reflection of everyone else’s suckiness than his greatness as a receiver. Or is SJ a better receiver than everyone thought?
A little of both. The number of truly good receiving backs is not huge, and Saint Louis has a pretty good offensive scheme for involving the RB in the passing game. (Unless a player is simply incapable of learning, he will improve through practice, and the Rams have their backs practice catching passes.)

by SJM (not verified) :: Mon, 10/31/2005 - 10:03pm


"Defense" is not a verb. For shame.

by Arkaein (not verified) :: Mon, 10/31/2005 - 10:07pm

Re 11: I was a bit surprised by that too, but then I looked and saw that Favre completed 75% of his passes.

As hard as that game was for me to watch as a Packers fan, i had to give the Cincy defense credit. They caught EVERYTHING. I mean you had CBs and safeties laying out for WR quality grabs, along with a couple of tipped passes that were gobbled up.

by dedkrikit (not verified) :: Mon, 10/31/2005 - 10:08pm

Love the Kennison comment.

by Trogdor (not verified) :: Mon, 10/31/2005 - 10:18pm

Hamster wheel, Aaron, hamster wheel. Brooks will be right back starting for the Saints next year.

Although I guess the question could have been, where will the Saints be playing next year?

by SJM (not verified) :: Mon, 10/31/2005 - 11:16pm

"Jacksonville Jaguars WR Ernest Wilford will see more action during Week 9, according to head coach Jack Del Rio."

That's from Yahoo Sports. Maybe Del Rio is finally getting it.

by admin :: Mon, 10/31/2005 - 11:43pm

Actually, defensed is a verb, if used in connection with sports: see link.

Theo, what kind of photo would you prefer? I don't really photograph well.

by zlionsfan (not verified) :: Tue, 11/01/2005 - 12:00am

It may be correct, but it still makes me cringe to read it ... I'd prefer "defend against him" or something like that ...

This is definitely an alternate universe. When you can legitimately write this sentence about Sunday's game, anything can happen: "The fine performance by the Bears' rookie QB was more impressive considering that it came against the Lions' stout pass defense."

by SJM (not verified) :: Tue, 11/01/2005 - 1:05am

Dictionary.com has just lost a lot of my respect. And that means something, because I have it as a quick-link on my browser.

by Todd S. (not verified) :: Tue, 11/01/2005 - 10:25am

Wow. 2 former Purdue QB's in the top 5 this week. At least the season isn't a complete washout. Oh wait...it still is. (For those of you who like to gamble, please note that Purdue is 0-8 ATS this year.)

That Steve Smith line is insane. 11 receptions in 11 attempts?! Divine.

by Sophandros (not verified) :: Tue, 11/01/2005 - 10:36am

SJM, I guess that you don't respect Webster, either.

As long as you respect Rodney Harrison, you should be good, though.

by White Rose Duelist (not verified) :: Tue, 11/01/2005 - 10:59am

Holy cow! DPAR says Favre played the 15th-best game by a qb this past week and was better than a whole bunch of qbs with at least 1 td and no picks. That ones a little surprising.

Favre gets a boost from a perfect pass to the fan and the highest passing DPAR ever from 9 yards beyond the line of scrimmage.

by spenceKarl (not verified) :: Tue, 11/01/2005 - 11:00am

Aaron, since you list a total DPAR for quarterbacks in the Quick Reads column, it would be nice to see a total DPAR listed in the Quarterbacks stat page as well. I know for most QBs, adding their Rush DPAR to their Pass DPAR doesn't change their value all too much. Just a suggestion however.

by Jerry F. (not verified) :: Tue, 11/01/2005 - 12:26pm

The Oxford English Dictionary has listings for "defense" as a verb going back to 1400. It is almost invariably used as "defensed." Yes, it's listed as "obs.," but that status never stopped a great writer like Wallace Stevens, so why should it stop Aaron Schatz?

Bonus usage note: "Wert thou defenced with circular fire..yet I should Neglect the danger."----The 1620s equivalent of "I wouldn't brake for you if I saw you crossing the street."

by wrmjr (not verified) :: Tue, 11/01/2005 - 12:50pm

Let's remember that most dictionaries--the OED included--are descriptive in nature. They don't tell you how to use a word, just how it has been used. Now they'll have to update that obsolete for Aaron...

Back to the lexicographic--er, football--discussion.

by TomC (not verified) :: Tue, 11/01/2005 - 12:57pm

Dammit Jerry! I was all over that OED post.

by Todd S. (not verified) :: Tue, 11/01/2005 - 1:09pm

Tom! Jerry! Stop fighting.

by Jerry F. (not verified) :: Tue, 11/01/2005 - 1:22pm

That's right. Much of the linguistic field would say that even if there were no precedent for "defensed," the regular usage of it would make it cromulent. Cromulency, they say, is determined on the street, not by professors. I, for one, feel embiggened by that view.

by wrmjr (not verified) :: Tue, 11/01/2005 - 1:27pm

Wow, Jerry. Wallace Stevens, the OED and the Simpsons, all in one thread. I thought the Talmud reference was cool, but you have outdone even that. Nice work!

by MJK (not verified) :: Tue, 11/01/2005 - 1:49pm

I like the use of "defense" as a verb in football parlance. The alternative would be to say a CB "defends" a WR, which sounds like he's standing up for the WR's rights. Of course, you could say "defends against", as in "Duane Starks doesn't seem to be able to defend against any wide recievers", but why use two words when you can use one. "Duane Starks couldn't defense a WR if the game dependended on it".

by The Minimalist (not verified) :: Tue, 11/01/2005 - 2:42pm

Starks. Defense. No.

by rk (not verified) :: Tue, 11/01/2005 - 2:59pm

I don't understand all of this discussion about "defensed." Passes defensed is a very common defensive statistic, ususally abbreviated PD.

by zlionsfan (not verified) :: Tue, 11/01/2005 - 3:49pm

How about "Duane Starks couldn't cover a WR ..."?

I don't believe in making a word fit my context (with respect to the NFL making it a category, not Aaron in this case); Passes Broken Up would be the phrase I'd use. If you insist on two words, I'd say Passes Deflected.

This is fun ... I suspect that not only are there few football sites where you can discuss the English language, on most of the other sites, there probably aren't many people who are equipped to do so.

by deadhorse (not verified) :: Tue, 11/01/2005 - 5:02pm

Wait...wasnt it a double reverse defence?

by Mr. Miyagi (not verified) :: Tue, 11/01/2005 - 7:39pm

Called "Double Reverse Technique". If do right, no can defense.