This is the last big post before the Hawks take on the Pack in the divisional round. It will be periodically updated throughout the day.

What We Know

Update 1: It took some finger work, and I had to track back through ESPN's play by play a game at a time, and some games lacked play by play, but I can now say, unfortunately, that I see no evidence that Ryan Grant has fumble problems. I found only 2 fumbles through the 2003-2004 seasons. Dang.

. . .

Update 3: We're about 21 hours from kickoff, and given that short window, can be pretty sure about tomorrow's weather. A site called "Weather Underground" (a name which I find hilarious) says that it will be between 24 and 31 in Green Bay, w/ a 30% chance of snow. The Pro Football Reference blog recently posted a chart that compared how much advantage home playoff teams have in the divisional round, and found a correlation between the extent of a home team's advantage, and the difference in it and its opponents average January temperature. Warm weather teams traveling to cold weather venues face the worst disadvantage in the divisional round. It's nice to know, then, that Lambeau should be within 15 degrees of Seattle's average January temperature. PFR estimates home teams facing opponents from climates within 15 degrees of their own average temp only benefit from 2.7 points of home field advantage. A mere Josh Brown field goal from the lead.

. . .

I have met the enemy and he's bucktoothed and gregarious. This (early) morning I worked with a talkative, rather incompetent, fellow with pronounced buckteeth and the kind of looks that make you feel bad for him before you forget and look again. Ugh. At some point while I was doing both our jobs and he was talking, he mentioned that he's a Packers fan. Green Bay, your emissaries leave something to be desired. Like that they shut up. He mentioned that he was looking forward to Green Bay "Kicking Seattle's ass." As if it was a foregone conclusion.

The Hawks are definite underdogs, and should this game get ugly, it will likely get ugly in favor of the Pack. An early lead can be salted away by a steady dose of big-boom rusher Ryan Grant. For the season the matchup is rather close, but the Packers are healthy, playing at home and rested. To put the odds into perspective, Green Bay's weighted DVOA is 17.5%, the Hawks 14.2. That's close, but then comes the home field advantage. Home field is estimated as adding 15% to a team's DVOA. Yep. That turns a close matchup into a one-sided affair. Seattle has been particularly strong at home, or weak on the road, depending how you look at it. So the advantage is only magnified. Smithers might say "people like dogs, sir", but, no, very few people will be rooting for Seattle. That's rooting against Brett Favre, and truth, and babies, after all. So the Hawks will have to content themselves with facts and theories, rather than rah-rahs. Here's my best explanation as to why Seattle still has a shot.

1. The Packers offense has benefited from an obscene number of long passes. Favre's 16 passes of 40 or more yards is twice what he produced last season and 7 more than Peyton Manning. Last season Drew Brees had an out of the blue spike of long receptions, 18, that fell back to 8 this season. The long reception is perhaps the least predictable quality of an offense. It often involves a lot of luck, too. The Hawks, for their part, are particularly good at defending the long pass. If Green Bay's deep passing attack doesn't show up on Sunday, their overall offense will be significantly worse.

   Update 2: As a follow-up to what I said about long receptions and their effect on an offense, I decided to take the top 20 quarterbacks of 2004, and the top 20 quarterbacks of 2005 and see how their DVOA change corresponded with their percentage of passes that went 40+ yards. I wrote down all quarterbacks who had 200+ attempts both seasons, and whose DVOA improved 10 or more % or declined 10 or more %. I know that’s not a properly large sample, but I’m crazy busy. The idea was to take all the quarterbacks from 2004 to 2007 that had their DVOA drop or rise 10 or more %, but duty calls and this is all had time for. I would like to pursue this further on some rainy day, and I advise people to take this with a small grain of salt, but I think the theory is valid. Anyhow. That produced a sample of 14 quarterbacks. Of the quarterbacks who improved 10 or more DVOA %, their ratio of passes of 40 or more yards to all attempts went from 1 in every 72.33 to 1 in every 65.2. This is the more suspect group, because it includes Kurt Warner, who’s ratio of pass attempts to completions of 40+ yards increased, but whose DVOA improved. The answer to why that happened is pretty obvious: Sacks. In 2005, Warner was sacked once every 16 pass attempts. In 2004, Warner was sacked once every 7 pass attempts. Wow. The more remarkable group, the group that declined 10 or more % in DVOA (A veritable who’s who of top quarterbacks: Manning, Brady, Brees, Favre, Bulger and Culpepper -when he was good) saw their attempts per 40+ yard completion rise from 1 in every 43.29 attempts to 1 in every 83.65 attempts. The point, long receptions have a ton to do with the production of a passing offense, but are not consistent year to year, or, I’d guess, even game to game.

   . . .

2. Seattle bests the Packers in net drive success by yards 4.74 to 3.76.
3. The Hawks special teams is better than DVOA represents it as. Aaron Schatz notes that: "Seattle's punt and field goal numbers both dived during the period when Boone Stutz was the long-snapper." If Plackemeier is again at his best, it will take a significant bite out of what looks like a punt (-11.6), punt return (12.6) mismatch.
4. The Hawks are healthier than the Packers.

What We Don't Know

Will Carroll describes Matt Hasselbeck as "polypained". Noting that he has a thigh injury, a strained oblique and bruised ribs. Beck is notorious for letting little aches and pains affect his play, as last week's poor showing against the Redskins attests. Matt Hasselbeck must be near 100% for Seattle to take advantage of its best mismatch against the Pack, its 3 and 4 wide receiver sets.

Speaking of those sets, we may finally get to see how good the Hawks passing offense could have/can be. The closest comparison to the kind of talent Seattle puts on the field when they go 4 wide is the New England Patriots. The Hawks have no Randy Moss, but, otherwise, are similarly capable of forcing a mismatch on every pass. It's not impossible, if Beck can keep his head, and the pass pro is there, that Seattle's passing offense may explode, have an outing unlike any its shown all season.

Will Mike Holmgren use Morris and Weaver or ride his ghost into the sun? Riding into the sun is a poetic metaphor for a cowboy, but the way it would in fact burn the rider and horse alive is a better metaphor for Seattle's running game. It's not a reach to say if Shaun Alexander had been IRed pre-season, and Seattle been forced to rely on Morris and Weaver to carry the load, that the Hawks might be the team hosting this contest after enjoying a healing bye. That's long past relevant, but what still matters, like it has never mattered before, is if Holmgren, Stump Mitchell and the Hawks whole offensive coaching staff are willing to understand that Alexander's time has passed, and that Morris, Weaver and Alexander run as a committee gives Seattle its best chance to win. It would be cheap for me to say, if Morris gets 15+ carries I guarantee a Hawks' victory, because we all know that if Morris is getting that many carries, the Hawks must be up multiple scores. But I will say, that without any ambiguity, if Holmgren allows Alexander to get the majority of touches, including passes, like he did against the Redskins, he will be actively hurting his team's chances of winning.

What We'll Find Out

Though being this pragmatic at a time when all should be about emotion, all should be about victory, is tantamount to sin, it must be said: The Hawks have virtually no chance, should they make it that far, of beating the New England Patriots. What then, can we take from Seattle's effort, this week, next week, in the Super Bowl, win, lose or draw? A sense of who this team will be next season. Seattle was worse on 3rd down offensively than they were on 1st or 2nd downs, that's a good indication that a team has a very good shot of improving, perhaps markedly as Seattle did from 2004 to 2005, the next season. The Hawks have great young talent in the D, talent in the offensive line and only a handful of players who can be expected to decline next season. It's 2008, and how Seattle plays for the rest of the playoffs shall gives us a tentative definition on how good this team can be next season. It will provide us an idea of Burleson's growth, the potential of the 4 WR offense. If Seattle should spend a high pick on a tight end, or stick with the 3 and 4 WR sets they've rode into the playoffs. How has Darryl Tapp progressed, I expect him to show up big on Sunday. Like every other major player on the roster, Seattle needs him to. Can Kelly Jennings begin to develop the ball skills that would turn him from a good, but not feared cover corner, into among the best #2 CBs in football. Can Kerney play through aches and pains? As he gets older, he'll have to.

Hey folks, while I get myself fired up, I just wanted to point you all to Football Outsiders excellent 2007 NFC Divisional Round Preview. Prolificness can thin even the most able, but when they're on, no one does it better than the Outsiders.

Sean Locklear is playing for tomorrow's millions. Some team somewhere is going to offer the Hawks steady right tackle big bucks this offseason, because they think he can make the switch to left tackle, and, moreover, because they're freakin' flush with cash. Last week, Lock took a sack allowed on an edge rush that looked like the Kentucky Derby: 100 furlongs forward, a half circle turn and 100 furlongs back where Matt Hasselbeck was busy chewing his cud in the starting gate. It certainly wasn't Beck's sharpest game, and when he's frustrated, he'll abuse his pass pro, live in the pocket waiting for something downfield to develop and ignore underneath routes. Hustle ends that don't take themselves out of the play and don't quit, are one of Lock's weaknesses. The other, is straight, pedal to the floor, bull rushers.

Aaron Kampman can be that. He hustles, too. He'll give you edge rush in a pinch and isn't bad at run stopping. It's debatable whether Kampman has arrived as one of the league's premier defensive ends, or if he's just in a supremely productive 2 year window. He entered this season like a house on fire, recording 9 sacks in the first 8 contests. Since then he's recorded only 3 sacks, and against less than stellar competition. One was recorded against Brandon Gorin, a mid-season replacement for the Rams. The other two came against the Lions, Mike Martz, George Foster (Oh, he of 11.75 sacks allowed and 9 false starts) or someone presumably behind him on the depth chart. Sacks are a dicey stat. A player can achieve pass rush without creating sacks, and a player achieving consistent pass rush can have his sacks bunch up at times. Not because he's necessarily playing better during that stretch, but because of luck and opportunity. Still, it's a noteworthy drop off.

Walter Jones is still a very good tackle. When a player reaches a certain age, and has been great for a very long time, he'll begin to receive rewards and accolades for the body of his career. For instance, Jones' recent All-Pro nod. The kneejerk counterforce to these plaudits is, of course, healthy skepticism. That can prejudice the skeptic's opinion as much as reputation poisons the traditionalist's opinion. Jones may no longer be as good as Joe Thomas, but that doesn't mean he's still not one of the very best left tackles in all of football. After a slow start to the season, caused by an advisable absence from the preseason, Jones has been steady, an occasional force in the run game, and a well rounded tackle with few weaknesses in pass pro. His worse weakness, though, will be tested this Saturday.

Kabeer Gbaja-Biamila has the explosive first step and cool nickname of a premier edge rusher. And he is a premier edge rusher, but he's not much else. KGB has 9.5 sacks on the season and only 22 solo tackles. This season he's been subbed heavily. Teamed with Cullen Jenkins, KGB's not strictly a third down end or pass rush specialist, but he's not far from it. Jenkins is not, on paper, a player that should give Jones any trouble. But KGB is. Jones is slower around the edge than he once was, and when he meets a defender, less willing to extend his chronically injured left shoulder out and risk re-injury. The Hawks have gone as far as employing pop blocks, moving guard Rob Sims out and Jones in, but that's a troublesome solution. Sims is then at a natural disadvantage to edge rushers who start closer to edge, forcing Sims to catch up before he engages the defender. Further, the space between the tackle and guard created by pop blocks can be exploited by a blitzing linebacker, something Seattle saw all too clearly in its second contest against the Rams.

So how does Seattle account for potential mismatches at both ends of the offensive line? The obvious solution is to avoid third and long. Of course they could just score more points than their opponent while they're at it, since I'm giving out dime store advice. Third and long, at some point, is an eventuality. The Hawks should take an idea from Green Bay's playbook. That is, short routes, backs in the flanks, and an occasional screen, especially to the left, where KGB will be sucked up, and supreme cover linebacker A.J. Hawk is on the opposite side of the field. The other thing that the Packers are smart about is that they are willing to send a receiver on a route short of the first down marker, if they know it's likely to materialize fast enough to allow them to escape excessive pressure or a sack. All those 5 yard gains on 3rd and 7 may net negative DVOA, but they also allow the Pack to have the best adjusted sack rate in football. It's a move a team makes when it trusts its defense; keeps an eye to the bigger picture, where five yards might help your punter pin the team back, or just help your QB avoid a pick or sack. Sometimes, that quick slant, or 5 yard crossing pattern or fullback screen turns into so much more. The Hawks have the talent to beat the Pack at their own game, now will they use it?

I woke up late this morning and as I scrambled to put myself together and get out the door, this refrain circled my brain: "There will be time, there will be time / To prepare a face to meet the faces that you meet". All the way up into the parking lot where I parked beside the flame red El Camino w/ the Mardi Gras beads strung about its rear view mirror that I always park by. Time is what I have today, but not tomorrow. Whatever I post tomorrow morning, will have been written today. So if Aaron Kampman dies tragically rescuing his family from the wreckage of a destroyed sinking battleship, don't blame me for being irrelevant.

. . .

Every morning Jordan Babineaux wakes up, prepares a burnt toast breakfast and ponders how he will make some former nobody shine this Sunday. And each week, I wake up, steep a bitter brew, and figure out how I will say anew four unchanging words: "Babs sucks in coverage." I've been crude, trenchant, crude thrice more and now, wistful and pendantic. Sigh, Kafkaesque, (frown), Mencius Moldbug...

The Packers offer a bunch of potential problems for Seattle's nickelback. McCarthy doesn't spread teams with the regularity that Holmgren does, but he does mix it up. James Jones has been targeted 80 times, Koren Robinson 38 in just 9 games, Ruvell Martin, who has Moss like size (I'm sorry, that's cheap, but pretty funny), 28. The perplexing thing is that only Martin has produced a positive DVOA. Jones' DVOA is among the worst among receivers with 50 or more passes targeting them, -6.7% (68th of 87th). Robinson's DVOA is -11.4%. Both have decent reception percentages (59 and 62% respectively) and decent YPC (14.4 and 11.5), and a fair amount of first downs converted, too. So why are they below average producers as receivers? I decided to look back through the play-by-play and see if anything stood out. I found two answers: One, that he's targeted on a lot of dink and dunk short stuff that DVOA marks as having negative value (that's arguable, but best left for another day), and, Two, he's targeted on a lot of third downs, and fails to convert many of them. I also found one annotated play-by-play. I wonder if that will soon be standard, and if so, hooray. If ineffectiveness in third down situations is all that hold down the two's value, well, the Seahawks and Babs particularly have patented a panacea for all opposing offenses third down woes. Unless!

Unless, the two posses poor hands. That is, they drop passes even after blown coverage. We know that was once one of Koren Robinson's bugaboos, so we'll skip him. Whether he still is prone to dropping passes is almost impossible to determine because, he has yet to outlive his reputation and hasn't been targeted on enough passes to prove whether he does still have problems dropping passes or not. Jones is the greater concern, anyhow. So let's Google "James Jones" Drops OR Hands:

Crap.

It'd be silly to call this a pitfall. Pitfalls befall superior teams, the Hawks, perhaps on par with the Pack, are not a superior team, and given home field advantage, are a definitive underdog. No, this is just my shot at fair and balanced. James Jones should slice through Seattle, and Koren Robinson still has his wheels, so Jones could convert the first and Robinson could burn Brian Russell for the long score. Yep. Not decisive, slot backs rarely are, but a good indication that Seattle will have to score some points, because the Hawks cannot totally shut the Pack down.

You know, I don't know. I've spent the last 90 minutes attempting to figure that out and have drawn 0s. I've read that he's a downhill rusher and a cutback rusher. He was an outside rusher when he started but now works well between the tackles. He looks like Dorsey Levens and Deuce McCallister. He was on academic probation at Notre Dame and was a straight "A" student at Notre Dame. It's a lot of confusion and hogwash, really. In my very brief exposure to Grant I noticed he's tall, runs upright and may have some injury/fumble problems down the line. I'm not a fan of player to player comparisons, but I thought Grant looked a bit like Chris Brown of the Titans. He seemed to be a very good slasher, but not exceptional at breaking/avoiding tackles in the open field. The Hawks were very successful against Brown in 2005 with a very similarly designed defense, for whatever that's worth.

From a scouting standpoint, an upright slasher with some injury concerns is a pretty ideal running back matchup for the Hawks. The Hawks are ferocious tacklers that don't allow a lot of room between bodies for slashing types to exploit. But, then, that's on pretty limited viewing. If Grant is a cutback rusher, he certainly could give the Hawks trouble. We all know that Seattle is at its weakest when caught in over-pursuit. That's the Hawks style, gang-tackles, bodies on the ball-carrier, shoot the gaps and rely on your teammates to clean up your mistakes. That's also one of the reasons Seattle allows a lot of 10+ yard rushing plays. 24% of all runs, to be exact, 30th in the NFL. The Pack rushing attack creates runs of 10+ yard on 27% of all plays, 3rd in the NFL. That's not promising, for sure, but it's also not Grant. Grant first started in week 8, since that contest he's only rushed for 10 or more yards on 15% of all runs. Still, if Grant, who possesses 4.43/40 speed, gets into Seattle's third level he should have little trouble zipping past Brian Russell for the score.

Perhaps this post is a waste of time. It certainly doesn't come to any firm conclusions. I felt compelled to address Grant, but without knowing exactly what type of rusher he is, I can only say he's been highly productive (16.8% DVOA) in 188 runs, and may have the skill-set necessary to exploit Seattle's sometimes over-aggressive defense. Or he may just fumble all over Lambeau, get broken in two and be the latest in a long string of rushers hurt and disposed of by the Hawks heavy hitters.

Here's a brief one before I take some much needed down time. Okay, so in any given contest an inferior team may beat a superior team, because of luck and because of a few important mismatches. Since the Hawks are the inferior team (maybe), let's see if any one matchup pokes its head out and yells "boo".

Green Bay DVOA vs "Other" Receivers: 27.4% (31)

Football Outsiders' receiver by receiver DVOA can be a little dicey. For one, many if not most teams don't have a clear #2 receiver, and therefore it's pretty damn hard to know who their 3+ or "Other" receivers are. Case in point, DJ Hackett had the Wild Card Round's best DPAR, probably because he was designated by the Outsiders as Seattle's #2 receiver. The Skins have been dominant against #2 receivers all year (-45.7% (2)), but is Hackett really the Hawks #2 receiver? I mean, he's probably their second best receiver, sure, but his biggest play, the 35 yard touchdown reception, was against a slot corner, and barely that. Pierson Prioleau is to coverage as Charles Taylor is to not being a war criminal. But, if you take their data, the data's solid mind you, and analyze it, it's tremendously valuable. The Packers safety is an undrafted rookie, their 3rd, 4th and 5th string corners are all undrafted players with 62 combined career tackles. That's not a ton of talent, and not a ton of inexperience. Plus, Atari Bigby owns one of the worst reputations in coverage in all the NFL.

Here's why this is so cool, the Hawks receivers, with the possible exception of Deion Branch, are all "other" receivers. That is, they all play regularly out of the slot. Seattle must go into Green Bay, spread out their defense, and prey on their exceptionally weak second string secondary, and, you know what, this isn't wishcasting, they will. Last week, 4 of Seattle's first 5 plays featured 4 receiver sets, and 8 of Seattle's first 11 plays featured 3 or 4 receiver sets. Holmgren is buying into this new spread style offense, and with Branch back, Hackett healthy and Burleson coming around, the Walrus should be all the more emboldened to spread 'em, shred 'em and pull the upset.

Before we break into the playoff previews, let me first say. When I was previewing the Redskins, I had time to amass tape before the game. Since the Hawks secured the 3 seed, the only Packers game I know of that's been broadcast in my area was the Bears' blowout in week 16. It's more than probable that that was an aberration, and I didn't record it. Therefore, the essential scouting portion of the following posts will be accomplished through redacting. That is, creating something new and cohesive from gathered information from various authors and commentators. When specific, I'll provide a link. A year ago, I wouldn't have any problem doing this, but the more I learn about the NFL, the more wary I am of 2nd hand information. It's amazing how much garbage is out there. So, be aware, this is almost entirely 2nd hand information. That doesn't mean it's faulty, I've developed a good eye for football BS, but I certainly wouldn't stand by it like I would that which I have seen with my own eyes. Further, whenever possible, I'll use good statistics rather than scouting, like in this following post.

Okay, with that out of the way, I think the Hawks can beat the Packers. A few essential units must play well, and the Hawks pass rush must be lights out, but the Packers are by no means the juggernaut their 13-3 record might imply. Injuries and ineffectiveness have thinned essential positions for the Pack, not least of which their right offensive line. None of the major sports websites even list a starter at right guard, though it is assumed formerly deposed second year man Daryn Colledge will reassume the spot. Perhaps more tantalizing, the man playing opposite Patrick Kerney, Mark Tauscher, accounts for 6 of the Packers' 19 sacks allowed.  Though Green Bay led the NFL in sacks allowed and adjusted sack rate, as Mike Tanier points out in this piece, it's more a product of scheme than quality blocking. So, to try and cut through the noise I developed a somewhat simple system I will now explain.

In Pro Football Prospectus 2007, Aaron Schatz compiled a list of every NFL team ranked by their ability to hurry a quarterback. I listed every team on the Packers schedule (twice, natch, for division foes), and then split them into two sections, teams good at hurrying quarterbacks, and teams bad at hurrying quarterbacks, 8 apiece. Good being teams in the top 16, bad being teams in the bottom 16. Because sacks and hurries do seem to be connected, I then removed any of the good teams that had fallen ten or more places in adjusted sack rate and removed any of the bad teams that had risen ten or more places in adjusted sack rate from 2006 to 2007. That removed Carolina from the good list and the New York Giants from the bad list. Here's the remaining good teams: Eagles, Cowboys, Bears, Bears, Vikings, Vikings and Chiefs. Bad: Redskins, Rams, Lions, Lions, Chargers and Broncos. The average DVOA pass defense ranking of the good teams: 14.57. Bad: 17.71. It should be noted, too, that the bad teams include the Skins when they were at their peak, pre key losses. From these lists I evaluated Favre's performance (and only Favre's) based on Adjusted Yards per Attempt as defined in The Hidden Game of Football (by Bob Carroll, Pete Palmer and John Thorn). Witness the results:

Favre against Bad "hurry" teams: 8.29 AYpA

Favre against Good "hurry" teams: 5.67 AYpA

Using this list compiled by Pro Football Prospectus, Favre v Bad would rank among the all time great quarterback performances, just hundredths of a yard worse than 1999 Kurt Warner (8.37). Favre v Good, though, is a couple ticks below league average. Kerney has a winning matchup, as does Rocky Bernard/Craig Terrill. If they, and the collected efforts of the rest of Seattle's front 7 can create consistent pressure, Seattle will have a huge step up in winning on Sunday.

This is a running thread of anything else that I think is worth mentioning in the next 23 hours. Feel free to post questions if you want, I'll try and answer all of them. Just not between 3 and 6, that's Morgan time!

Continue reading this post »

I'm having a hell of a time making sense of the Washington Redskins defense. Let me explain my confusion to you, and then we'll do some specific player profiles. Defense is a considerably harder thing to get a grasp on in just a few games. And when you just don't really know something terribly well, it's better to not shoot your mouth off about it. Instead, I'll try and take you through my process and see if that's at all informative. Then I'll do my best to tell you what I know, however limited.

The Redskins finished the season with the 6th ranked defense overall, composed of the 7th ranked pass defense and the 11th ranked run defense. That's very good, and though I'm by no means beholden to Football Outsiders metrics, they're an excellent starting point. In 2006, with nearly the exact same personnel, the Washington Redskins had the 32nd ranked defense. That season they were ranked 32nd against the pass, too. The Skins three major additions this off season were Fred Smoot, Laron Landry and London Fletcher-Baker. I will talk about the first two in greater detail in a second. Their pass rush ranked dead last in 2006, and only managed to climb to 26th in 2007. That a team can have the 7th best pass defense in the NFL with the 26th ranked pass rush is strange in of itself, but it gets weirder...

The Skins lost two of their very best DBs, Carlos Rogers and Sean Taylor. Rogers was replaced by Fred Smoot and Taylor by Reed Doughty. Both appear to be inferior compared to their antecedents. That left them with this starting 4 in the secondary: Shawn Springs, Fred Smoot, Laron Landry and Reed Doughty. Springs is an excellent player, Landry looks talented and skilled, but Smoot and Doughty...

Smoot started 9 games as the #2 corner and yet, the Skins are excellent at defending #2 corners (-45.7 DVOA 2nd). Smoot is not a good corner. Smoot has never been a good corner, and against the Vikings in week 16, he was regularly beat by Troy Williamson. Smoot leaves tons of cushion, misjudges routes and has recorded 4 picks in the last 3 seasons. Smoot was twice replaced in Minnesota, and was signed by the Skins to play nickel.

Doughty doesn't look like he should be playing in the NFL. His lone solo tackle against the Vikings came when he made a nice read, shot the gap, tackled Adrian Peterson and hurt himself in the process. I could be wrong about the plucky 6th rounder out of division I-AA Northern Colorado, he certainly has the head and the heart, but the kid just looks too small and too fragile to stick on an NFL roster.

Springs is the class of the secondary. At 32, Springs doesn't have the closing speed he once had, but it's still above average. He's a sure tackler, but, above all else, he's just a smart, skilled corner. He rarely breaks coverage, knows when to fade off his man in anticipation of a deep route, has excellent field awareness - where the first down marker is, how to pin his receiver against the sideline, and how to break up a pass without drawing a flag. Springs doesn't have the ball skills he once had, despite his 4 picks. His interception against the Vikings, like his teammate Smoot's, was a gimmie INT gift-wrapped by a badly struggling Tarvaris Jackson. Seriously, if you can't learn not to throw the ball while your being hit, your stay in the NFL is likely going to be very short.

Landry is an excellent young safety. He has both good quickness and excellent long strider's speed. Plus, he's tremendously athletic. The Skins deployed him ultra deep for most of the game against the Vikings, where, to television crews, he was essentially invisible. What I saw, from his ability to read the play to his overall athletic potential, makes me think he's a future star, and, perhaps, superstar. He needs some polish, but an occasional bad break on a ball is to be expected from a rookie.

It's not a collection of talent that screams dominant pass defense. It only further confuses the matters that the Skins have, seemingly, one top level pass rusher: Andre Carter. The run defense I can understand, but the Skins pass defense is an honest-to-god mystery. My mind and my eyes say it's just not that good, but DVOA begs to differ. I looked back at the Skins defense the week before they lost Carlos Rogers for the season and found that it was ranked 1st in all of football. By week 15, before the Skins played a hapless Tarvaris Jackson and a halfassed Cowboys squad, it had fallen all the way to 11th. That defense, minus two of its best players, that took a 1st placed ranking and dragged it down to 11th, that's the defense I see. And, I think, that's the defense that will take the field this Saturday.

. . .

This is all I have time for today. We'll finish strong tomorrow, looking over the rest of the Skins' D and profiling some important matchups.