Bleacher Report - Articles by Henry Milton

This Should Be A Put Up Or Shut Up Year For Matt Schaub

Henry Milton — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 21:33:57 -0400

When you read the list of players on the NFL hot seat, Matt Schaub is curiously not on any one of them.

This is strange, for Schaub definitely needs to prove that he is capable of being a starting NFL QB by leading the Texans to the playoffs this year.

If he cannot, the Texans need to try to go in another direction, whether via free agency, trade, or the draft.

These are the reasons why.

1) The Texans are no longer an expansion team.

The Texans have never been under any pressure to perform because of the "grace period" that exists for expansion teams in the eyes of the media and the fans.

That period is over.

The Texans entered the NFL eight years ago. The Tennessee Titans had the best record in the NFL last year with only one starter who has been with them since 2002—Keith Bulluck.

With the draft and free agency, eight years is more than enough to build a competitive franchise. The Texans—and their players—should be judged by the same standards as everyone else, and that includes Matt Schaub.

2) Schaub is by no means inexperienced.

Quite the contrary. He started 40 games at Virginia, running a pro-style, west coast offense that is similar to what the Texans run. Then, he spent his first three years in the NFL as the number two QB for the Atlanta Falcons, a team whose offense was based on the Denver Broncos-type offense that Houston runs, and this is his third year as the Texans' starter.

Granted, some QBs like Steve Young and Rich Gannon were late bloomers, but the point is that Schaub has had the ideal background and preparation to succeed in his current system, and more than enough time to do so.

3) The Houston Texans have been on the cusp of success for a while.

This is not the Bengals we are talking about.

The Texans have gone 6-10, 8-8, and 8-8 the last three years. Better QB play could have gotten them over the top in each of those years, and in the last two seasons in particular.

4) The Texans have no glaring deficiencies.

This isn't the expansion team with the sieve offensive line that ruined any shot that David Carr had of succeeding (70 sacks his rookie season!), had no run game, defense, or anything but a young Andre Johnson.

Instead, the Texans probably have the second best offensive line in the AFC South. They also arguably have the best group of pass-catchers, and a good—if not great—RB in Steve Slaton.

On defense, if Brian Cushing is healthy and plays as expected, they will easily have the best LBs in the division, good DBs, and that leaves the defensive line as the weak link the team. As this "weak link" contains Pro Bowl caliber Mario Williams, proven performer Antonio Smith at DE, and and an average—if not playmaking—rotation of Amobi Okoye, DelJuan Robinson, Frank Okam, and Shaun Cody at DT.

Their weak link is not nearly as bad as, say, the Jacksonville Jaguars' wide receivers. If they put points on the board, the Texans have 10-6 or 11-5 talent, and putting points on the board centers on Matt Schaub.

5) The Texans invested heavily in Schaub.

The fellow is no caretaker for a dominant team along the lines of what Kerry Collins and Joe Flacco were for Tennessee and Baltimore last season or what Kyle Orton will be for Denver this season.

Instead, Houston gave up two second round picks for Schaub and invested a $48 million contract in him. Before the new collective bargaining agreement made absurd contracts like that of Jake Delhomme ($42 million over five years) somewhat routine, Schaub's contract was the going rate for a Pro Bowl caliber QB who was not drafted in the first round.

For instance, Tom Brady's contract, which was signed two years prior to Schaub's, was six years for $60 million. With the picks—which the Atlanta Falcons have used to acquire two starters—and the investment, Schaub should be a guy who leads the Texans to victories this season.

6) The 2010 draft is an excellent one for QBs.

Colt McCoy, Sam Bradford, Zac Robinson, and Todd Reesing represent the Big 12 alone. Then there is also Jevan Snead and Tim Tebow from the SEC. (Although the Texans, who need to win right away, would not be a good destination for Tebow, who unlike Schaub has not played in a pro style offense and will need at least two years to pick up the NFL game).

This gives the Texans a good shot at getting a QB with a first-round grade without having to trade up even if they barely miss the playoffs, in contrast with last season where the Jets had to pay a handsome sum to trade up to get a guy who started 16 college games in Mark Sanchez. While trading for a QB is probably the safest way to find a good QB, if Schaub fails to lead the Texans to the playoffs yet again and a guy like Snead is available, the Texans have to take him.

This really should be Schaub's last shot with the Texans.

A guy who played in a pro-style college offense AND had the benefit of holding a clipboard for three seasons should not get four tries to lead a talented team to the playoffs. Why more people have not picked up this angle is very surprising.

Was Charlie Ward A Better QB Than Tim Tebow? Probably ...

Henry Milton — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 14:55:10 -0400

Bobby Bowden started a little kerfuffle by claiming that Charlie Ward may have been as good as Tim Tebow. Please note: he didn't say that Ward was better explicitly, he only stated that it was plausible. It is not nearly as far-fetched as Gator fans choose to believe.

After all, Bowden remembers that the national media frenzy over Charlie Ward was as big as it is over Tebow now, and when you consider that Ward's career came before the maximum exposure era of the Internet, blogs, and sports talk radio and also before ESPN became the monster that it is now, that is saying something.

Make no mistake, for two years Ward was the No. 1 star in college football and a major media phenomenon that transformed the sport. Even Madonna—who at the time was the globe's No. 1 celebrity—wanted to meet Ward (Ward declined).

And when Ward wasn't drafted by the NFL, it was a controversy that consumed the media for months (even Nightline did a cover story related to the issue.) So, the people who rolled their eyes when Bowden—who by the way has seen star QBs come and go in his time and even coached a few, including Super Bowl MVP and Pro Bowler Brad Johnson —when Bowden compared Tebow with Ward need to remember how quickly we forget.

Right down to being well known and embraced (and in some circles criticized, see here and here) for being a vocal evangelical Christian, the Charlie Ward phenomenon was every bit as large in the early 1990s as the Tebow one is now.

Now realize that a direct comparison between Ward and Tebow are useless. Much to the chagrin of many Seminole fans, Bobby Bowden only played Charlie Ward for two years. (A defensible decision as his predecessor Casey Weldon finished No. 2 in Heisman voting to Desmond Howard.) Further, Ward and Tebow played in different systems.

Perhaps more important, the era was different. The wide-open style of football that allows QBs to put up huge numbers (including those who lets face it aren't very good) was unknown to major college football at the time.

What is more, Charlie Ward's shotgun offense at FSU was one of the things that paved the way for our current era of spread football. It can fairly be said that Tebow is in many respects indebted to Ward for the fact that he is playing QB rather than LB or TE, because Ward was one of the first dual threat QBs playing big time college football outside of the veer and wishbone oriented offenses in the Big 8 (and Ward went 2-0 against one of the best QBs in Big 8 and college football history, Tommie Frazier).

Still, some things should be established by anyone making the comparison to keep things honest.

1. It is obvious that Charlie Ward could run Urban Meyer's offense, for Ward was an option QB in high school. However, whether Tim Tebow could run Bobby Bowden's pro-style west coast offense is subject to debate.

Incidentally, Ward made the transition from option QB to pro-style QB while at FSU, an incredible accomplishment, especially when one considers that Ward began his FSU career as a punter (and a good one!) and divided his time at FSU between football and basketball (Ward never once participated in spring football at FSU).

Meanwhile, we won't find out whether Tebow can run a pro-style offense until he gets to the NFL. Allow me to say if Tebow can come anywhere close to Ward's accuracy, tough and decision-making, he will be an outstanding NFL QB.

2. Ward's not being drafted by the NFL was no judgment on his merits as a QB. Instead, Ward made it clear to the NFL that he preferred the NBA. Therefore, he would only commit to the NFL were he drafted in the first round. Otherwise, he would evaluate his NFL prospects versus his NBA ones.

The only one willing to abide by his conditions was Denny Green, then coach of the Minnesota Vikings. However, the Vikings' owner would not give Green permission to draft Ward in the first round (similar to Joe Montana and Drew Brees, Ward was not considered a first round prospect due to height and arm strength).

Several NFL teams—including the Vikings and Kansas City Chiefs—called Ward at various points during the draft after the first offering to take him, but Ward "refused to commit to playing football if drafted" (according to the Chiefs).

After the draft Minnesota and several other teams offered Ward a free agent contract equal to that of a second round pick (including signing bonus and guaranteed money), but Ward refused.

Make no mistake, the NFL wanted badly wanted Ward, but Ward preferred the NBA, and would have only gone to the NFL after failing in the NBA. As it was, he had an 11-year NBA career.

3. It is tempting to go the "Ward was a better athlete but Tebow is a better QB" avenue, but it simply isn't true. Instead, the converse is true.

Tebow is the once in a generation athlete with off-the-charts natural ability. Tebow is bigger, stronger, and would probably be a 1st round draft pick at LB or TE. Yet while lacking Tebow's immense natural gifts, Ward was clearly the more skilled player of the two.

Tebow is the one who is the "athlete playing QB" much closer to Michael Vick and Vince Young, where Ward was the passing QB whose game was much more similar to that of Drew Brees and Sam Bradford.

Had Ward not become a very proficient and skilled pro-style passer, he would have remained a punter (and again a good one!).

4. Please, no talk about how Tebow has all these intangibles, that he is this great leader. Ward was a QB of the football team, point guard on the basketball team, and student body vice president while at FSU, so if you want leadership, there you have it.

Also, it was Ward who finally dragged FSU past their "bridesmaid" label, their "wide right" history of coming up short in big games, and helped Bobby Bowden get rid of his "the best coach never to win a national title" label.

By contrast, it was Danny Wuerrfel who did the same for Florida, and further Florida's second title came with Tebow as Chris Leak's backup (that's right, Florida fans, so none of this "Tebow has two titles to Ward's one!" nonsense. While Tebow did certainly contribute—as did Percy Harvin, Jarvis Moss, DeShawn Wynn, and lots of other guys—it was Leak's team. And for you Florida fans who will never forgive Leak for blowing that Auburn game... Tebow played no better in the loss to Ole Miss).

5. It is fair to talk about rivalries. Charlie Ward played against Miami, Florida, Notre Dame and Nebraska back when those programs were ruling college football, and went 4-2 against them, with both losses very close (also, Ward went 2-0 against some very good North Carolina teams coached by none other than Mack Brown).

By contrast, the Miami and FSU teams that Tebow has played have been a shell of their former selves, and is only 3-3 against LSU, UGA, and in bowl games. Further, Tebow has yet to play the ruling team in college football: the USC Trojans.

Am I saying that Ward is better? No. As a matter of fact, if the Gators run the table this year, it will be fair to say that Tebow will have surpassed both Charlie Ward and Matt Leinart (although not necessarily Matt).

The Denver Broncos' Solution to the Jay Cutler Mess: DO NOTHING!

Henry Milton — Tue, 24 Mar 2009 09:54:06 -0400

A popular long-running sitcom was oft referred to as "a show about nothing." A hit funk song from the 1970s declared that war was good for nothing. And "nothing" was the number of wins by the 2008 Detroit Lions and the number of losses by a certain Miami Dolphins franchise.

The Denver Broncos should be inspired by and follow those and other great examples of things empty and void in resolving the mess with their 25-year-old record-setting Pro Bowl QB, Jay Cutler.

Maybe they Broncos need guidance in doing so, as they are right now being run by a first time general manager and a first time head coach. So, they can go around and ask the other 31 teams in the NFL how they plan to deal with trading THEIR 25-year-old record-setting Pro Bowl QBs.

The other teams would reply "nothing." Why? Because they don't have such creatures on their roster to consider trading or not trading to begin with. Well, the Broncos can simply do the same and pretend they don't have one either.

Take a cue from the movie Single White Female, where the crazed killer asks her roommate, "Who is this Hedra anyway? No one's seen her. She's not on the lease." The Broncos can say, "Jay Cutler? Who is he? If he's not our starting QB, then he's Nemo (Latin for NO ONE) as far as the NFL is concerned."

Jay Cutler is under contract to the Denver Broncos for the next three seasons. While the contract doesn't compel Cutler to play for the Broncos (thanks NFLPA collective bargaining agreement!) it can keep Cutler from playing anywhere else.

What is more, if Cutler refuses to play, not only do the Broncos not have to pay him, but they have the option of fining him for each day he misses.

They won't be able to recoup all of the money that Cutler is owed (again, thanks collective bargaining agreement!) but Cutler will have to pay the Broncos for the privilege of doing nothing.

You might ask "how can a franchise do such an evil thing! It is unprecedented!" No it isn't. The Bengals made it clear that they were willing to do the same to Chad Johnson.

Also, the Detroit Lions did it to Barry Sanders.

Officially, Barry Sanders "retired," but the truth was that Sanders just didn't want to play for the Lions anymore (for obvious reasons). The Lions let Sanders know that they weren't going to trade him or release him, but instead use his contract to make sure that he wasn't going to go help another team win and make them look like fools in the process.

Now when the Lions did it, it was an idiotic decision, because they could have gotten players or picks for Sanders to make their team better. So isn't that the same case with Cutler? Ah, no.

You see, Barry Sanders was a TAILBACK. A first ballot Hall of Fame one, true, but still a tailback. You can replace a great tailback with a very good one rather easily, or you can win without one.

But in today's NFL, you aren't going to win without an effective QB, especially in the AFC. Now sure, its POSSIBLE, but only if you have great players practically everywhere else.

That does not describe the Broncos, who were only 8-8 WITH Cutler's 4,500 yards and 25 TDs in the AFC West, the second worst division in football (to the NFC West).

And that is why Cutler has no leverage. If he leaves, the Broncos are still going to stink no matter what they get in return. So instead of helping another team—and helping Cutler—by allowing him to use his record setting skills for another team, it is better for them to force Cutler to play for them, and in the worst case scenario let make him sit.

Making Cutler sit will result in the Broncos being no worse than they would be if they traded him.

What if they trade Cutler for another QB? If they do, they'll only wind up with someone that another franchise can't win with, like Brady Quinn or Kyle Orton. So...Cleveland and Chicago can't win with those guys, but Denver can?

What if they trade Cutler for a high draft pick that they can use on Matt Stafford or Mark Sanchez?

No rookie QB is going to be able to run Josh McDaniels' complex and precision offense no matter how good he is, and teams that run such systems generally take QBs later in the draft anyway precisely because it is going to take at least two or three years before he'll be ready to play.

So scratch that.

Fine, but what about getting a package of players and picks for Cutler to make your team better?

First of all, no team is going to give up the sort of difference making player at a critical position in a trade.

Every franchise has guys that are untouchable because if they give those guys up, they won't be any better than Denver is now, and if that be the case, what is the point in trading for Cutler anyway, especially since they would also give up the draft picks that would use to try to replace their cornerstones?

Also, as stated already, even if Denver were to get a couple of starters in a trade and use the draft picks to select a couple more starters, they still wouldn't be any good because they still wouldn't have a quarterback. Sure, maybe they'd be 8-8 instead of 4-12, but they still wouldn't be a playoff team.

Instead, they'd be paying a lot more money to the guys and draft picks that they got for Cutler for the privilege of not being any good until they get an effective QB. You go sell the Broncos owner Pat Bowlen on spending more money to NOT make the playoffs and see how far that gets you.

Bowlen will reply that if he wanted that, he would have never fired Dan Reeves, let alone Mike Shanahan.

So, since trading Cutler benefits Denver in no way, why do it? No one can provide an answer. The media will never acknowledge this, because the media has an interest in making sure that star QBs in the NFL continue to get pampered.

So what.

The media is not going to win a single game for the Broncos, nor will they write a single check to Pat Bowlen to help him pay his players.

What the media WILL do is mock Denver for the next 20 years if Cutler goes on to have a Hall of Fame career somewhere else, and the Broncos should keep that in mind when the media is ripping them to shreds for refusing to give into Cutler's demands.

And the guy who will receive the brunt of the abuse will be Josh McDaniels, who would be fired within three seasons and unable to get another head coaching job ... a career ruined by age 35.

That is just one benefit to saying "Us or nobody" to Cutler. Another benefit: It strengthens the position of McDaniels with the players that Denver will still have. Another benefit still: A league without Cutler in it will be an easier league for the teams that don't have Cutler—including Denver—to win games and compete for the playoffs.

Is that much to gain by keeping Cutler on the sidelines? No. But that isn't the point. The point is that if Cutler isn't going to play for Denver, then they lose anyway. Keeping Cutler from playing elsewhere allows them to cut their losses.

It is not in the NFL's best interests?

Well, life will move on in the NFL, who will just find another star to promote. Is it in Jay Cutler's best interests? No, but Jay Cutler is a grown man with tens of millions of dollars in the bank who can take care of himself.

It is in the best interests of the Broncos, and if the Broncos don't look out for their own interests, who will? Not the NFL franchises trying to beat the Broncos on the field, and certainly not Jay Cutler.

Besides, time is on the Broncos' side. Right now, the fans and the media are backing Cutler and blaming the Broncos, especially McDaniels.

The only reason is not the facts of the case—that Denver has the right to trade any player that they choose, that McDaniels has the right to get the players that he wants, and it is in the interests of the Broncos and in general the NFL to assert the authority of the coach, general manager, and owner (in all of whose eyes Cutler is sticking his thumbs right now), or else the NFL will descend into the repugnant chaos that the NBA was a few years ago.

The last one is key. The media would love to keep the line going that "quawtabacks is special!" and that the league should bend over backwards to keep them happy.

The truth is that the other players aren't going to buy some grotesque standard where the QB is pampered while the guys who the QB cannot possibly win without have to "shut up and play!"

It will take approximately five seconds before a guy gets it into his head "you think your QB is all that? Fine...see how good he is without me blocking/running the ball/catching the ball/playing defense for him.

As a matter of fact, Cutler's biggest defenders love to point out "he hasn't had any help!" to explain away the fact that he hasn't had a winning season since high school.

Of course, it is true—though not as ironclad as Cutler apologists claim—but that is all the more reason why the Broncos can't and shouldn't buy the media line that they should accommodate Cutler because QBs are so special.

In truth, accommodating Cutler would set a bad precedent for the franchise and the NFL.

This is nothing like Baltimore (Indianapolis) and San Diego being forced to trade away John Elway and Eli Manning, a favorite media canard, as players are not obligated to sign with the team that drafts them...they can re-enter the draft.

But once a player signs a contract with a franchise, the player should either play for the team or be traded or released on terms that benefit the franchise. The idea that you are going to be able to get away with a "QB with hurt feelings" exception to this without no one else trying to exploit it is unrealistic.

So, as this drags on, eventually the media is going to be forced to stop saying, "How DARE Denver offend Jay Cutler by trying to trade for the OBVIOUSLY INFERIOR Matt Cassel," (funny how people who are so concerned with Cutler's feelings could care less about Cassel!).

The fans will be forced to stop saying "Josh McDaniels doesn't know what he is doing, plus none of the Belichick assistants have done anything anyway!" to saying, "Ok...why isn't this guy in camp?

"This isn't about him wanting a bigger contract, this isn't about some real personal dispute with his head coach, because he has barely spoken to—let alone played for—his head coach and doesn't even know the guy. He is hurting the team, and it is time to move on."

Of course, Cutler is free to defy public opinion and remain intransigent, but again, look at it from Josh McDaniels' point of view, and the owner who has a vested interest in McDaniels' succeeding. If Cutler is traded, the story line forever will be "it was McDaniels' fault.

"He did something or said something that alienated the franchise" and McDaniels never lives it down. But once public opinion swings, the fans and the media will have no choice but to conclude that Cutler is the one being unreasonable.

The fans will have to accept that Cutler is not going to get what he wants: McDaniels is not going to be fired, and not only that, but they aren't even going to get any picks and/or players for the guy.

And the media, whose whole strategy of making money off the NFL, will have to deal with the best young QB in the NFL—indeed the best young QB in a long time—is on the sidelines hurting their bottom line in a bad economy.

Again, it won't be enough to force Cutler to play for McDaniels and Bowlen if he doesn't want to, but it will certainly make the Broncos look a lot better than they do right now.

That plus not being stuck with paying the players and picks that they would get for Cutler so they can lose games with a higher payroll AND not having to see Cutler light it up for someone else—and inevitably down the line beat the Broncos at some point—is the best deal that they will be able to manage should Cutler choose to continue to act this way.

And if that is the best that the Broncos can do, then it is my advice that they take it.

Again, trading Cutler hurts the Broncos far more than it could possibly help them, so they shouldn't do it. Jay Cutler is a Denver Bronco until his contract runs out. Of course, taking this stance would effectively end Cutler's career, but keep in mind: It would be Cutler's own decision to throw it away.

The Problem Being Mike Tomlin: Now What?

Henry Milton — Mon, 02 Feb 2009 11:55:22 -0500

What's it like to be Mike Tomlin right now? He is a 36-year-old that has just won a Super Bowl. I do not deny that Tomlin had the benefit of a very talented team and outstanding organization.

I do concede that beating the 8-8 San Diego Chargers, a team featuring a rookie quarterback and head coach in the Baltimore Ravens, and the Arizona Cardinals, who were only 9-7 for a reason this year, was not some great run through a tough playoff gauntlet for the ages.

But that doesn't change that Tomlin's Steelers got it done whereas other teams that had their shots didn't. It doesn't change that the team Tomlin took over was 8-8 the season before, or that only 20 Steelers remain from Bill Cowher's Super Bowl-winning team.

It also does not change that the Steelers had the toughest schedule in the NFL this season, and navigated through it with a patchwork offensive line and injuries to his quarterback, running backs, and wide receivers.

It also does not change that Tomlin opened up the Steelers' offense (and was criticized for it by none other than his starting tailback, Willie Parker), stood up for his quarterback Ben Roethlisberger when he was being criticized for turning over the football, and even had some elements of his own Cover-two incorporated into Dick LeBeau's defense.

The Steelers were clearly Tomlin's team, and he did a great job of coaching it, showing great improvement from some bumbling "not quite ready for primetime" moments in 2007.

Furthermore, the Steelers should be even better in 2009. They aren't facing yet another massive wave of free agent defections, their offensive line situation will improve via health and acquisitions, and they should get more from high draft picks Rashard Mendenhall and Limas Sweed, who contributed very little this season.

Whether the Steelers repeat will be mostly a matter of health and how the ball bounces, but they will have as good a shot as any. And Mike Tomlin will be...all of 37 years old?

That is the primary issue with Tomlin.

Tomlin has proven he can compete with the best on football's highest stage and come away with the top prize. So where does he go from here? What is Tomlin's football coaching career going to be 30, 20, or even 10 years from now?

After all, the game has changed. No longer are guys going to be able to spend 20-to-30 years with one franchise as did Chuck Noll, Tom Landry, Don Shula, etc.

For example, the longest tenured NFL head coach in a single city is Jeff Fisher, who has only been in Nashville for 14 seasons.

So what does Tomlin do?

Hop from NFL franchise to NFL franchise? Go to the college ranks to make the real money?

Lane Kiffin will make an average of $2.375 million a year to coach the Tennessee Volunteers. Add to that, Lane Kiffin's father Monte will average $1.5 million a year to be the Volunteers' defensive coordinator.

Will Tomlin work in another field than football? The possibilities may appear endless, but are they really?

I agree, Tomlin's "plight" is a good problem to have today.

But what about tomorrow?

Then again, maybe Tomlin is one of those who will let "tomorrow" take care of itself.

But as for today, Tomlin is a guy that can coach in a game that doesn't provide lengthy vacations.

After all, the combine is in less than three weeks, and free agency will fire up a short time after.

Why Tim Tebow Is NOT the Best Ever

Henry Milton — Thu, 22 Jan 2009 16:10:44 -0500

Florida Gator, SEC, and Tim Tebow fans are right now cringing, thinking, "Oh no, not another 'Tim Tebow is overrated' article!" Well, this is one from someone who is motivated by something other than sour grapes, someone who actually is a supporter of Tebow and, while not actually a fan of Florida, much preferred to see an SEC team winning a national title in 1996, 2006, and 2008 than FSU, Ohio State, and Oklahoma.

But calling Tim Tebow "the greatest ever" at this point is so unjustified, and further, the people who engage in this nonsense do so by committing a rotten, lowdown, dirty trick. What am I speaking of? Such people do so by pretending that the college career of Chris Leak did not exist.

Chris Leak? Remember him? He may be easy to forget, as his college career before the arrival of Urban Meyer to Gainesville was unspectacular. However, that was through no fault of his own, but his coach Ron Zook.

Also, his professional career since has been even more disappointing, failing to receive even the obligatory courtesy of getting drafted in the bottom of the seventh round for A) being a successful starting QB at a major school and B) winning a national title. He is now trying to make his way in the Canadian Football League.

Well, as easy as it is to push Leak aside in favor of his more celebrated and indeed better successor, it is still wrong. Leak was the unquestioned starter of the 2006 national championship team. The whole "Tim Tebow is the greatest ever" argument is based on either forgetting that fact entirely (by failing to mention it), or if it is mentioned, pretending as if Florida had some co-starter/two-QB arrangement.

Even the latter, depicting Tebow as some kind of "co-QB," is false. Do not get me wrong, Tebow was a vital piece of the 2006 team, not only giving them the semblance of a running game that they otherwise lacked, but also throwing two TD passes in a critical game against LSU, and giving Urban Meyer the ability to effectively run some elements of his offense situationally.

But even appropriately crediting him for all that, Tebow had only 358 passing yards and 469 rushing yards in 2006. So that is 827 total yards for Tebow versus Leak's 2,950 yards passing.

When you consider that nearly half of Tebow's 827 yards that year came against Western Carolina (250 yards) and Central Florida (140 yards), claiming that "Tim Tebow was a part-time starter and the reason why Florida won the national title that year," as the Sporting News does in one of their "Tim Tebow greatest ever" articles, is not an exaggeration.

It is a lie—a dishonest lie that does disservice to Chris Leak (whom a lot of people forget went 8-5 with a victory over national champs LSU in 2004 and 9-3 as a starter with a victory over SEC champs UGA in 2005, and was an accomplished SEC QB before Tebow ever arrived on campus).

So was Tim Tebow A REASON? Of course. But so was Percy Harvin. As a matter of fact, so were the nine Florida Gators who were drafted that year. This included practically their entire defensive line and secondary, most prominently first round picks Jarvis Moss and Reggie Nelson. You know, guys who actually started.

Tebow was nothing but a role player that year, and a backup to a QB in Leak that despite less than ideal circumstances (two head coaches, three offensive coordinators, and the last two years of his career in an offense that did not fit his talents, and oh yes, a significant portion of the Florida Gator fan base that hated his guts and scapegoated him for Ron Zook's failures) still managed to set a bunch of passing records.

So if you are going to make Tebow "the greatest ever," you are going to have to do it while throwing the 2006 national title out the window, or at least acknowledge that he was merely a contributor, not "part-time starter" or any other lead performer.

That 2006 title was the defense, Chris Leak, and of course the coaching staff led by Urban Meyer, but which included Greg Mattison (who got an underachieving defensive line into shape) and Meyer's wise decision to finally hire a decent strength and conditioning coach in Mickey Marotti.

So what has Tim Tebow done since 2006? A lot. 2007 was statistically outstanding, but it nonetheless included four losses, including in the big rivalry game to UGA and also in the bowl game to Michigan.

While Tebow's injuries played a key role in some of those losses (there is NO WAY that Florida loses to UGA, for instance, were Tebow not limited by injury), in the Michigan loss in particular Tebow simply failed to make the plays in the passing game, especially at the end, required to salvage a very winnable game. Division I-AA Appalachian State star Armanti Edwards played a better game against Michigan than Tebow did, period.

2008? Yes, Tebow did lead Florida to a national title. But, er, so have lots of people. One of them was Chris Leak, remember? And 2,750 passing yards and 675 rushing yards in a 14-game season...good but not great. And yes, Tim Tebow did not exactly play well in the home loss to Ole Miss.

The "Tim Tebow is the greatest ever!" line is based on pretending that Tebow looked as good the entire season as he did in that fourth quarter against Alabama. Indeed, that was the whole argument for Tebow's deserving the Heisman over Sam Bradford and Colt McCoy...the fourth quarter against Alabama.

But the truth is that Tim Tebow wasn't anywhere nearly that good for most of the season, and that includes most of the national title game.

Speaking of last games...Utah's Brian Johnson had a better game against Alabama than Tebow did. Comparing Johnson and Edwards to Tebow is relevant because they all run the same offense.

So the truth is that Tim Tebow is nowhere near the best college QB or player ever. As a matter of fact, he isn't even the best QB to play at Florida. That would be Danny Wuerffel! Huge numbers? Wuerffel had those. Heisman? Wuerffel had that. National title? Wuerffel did that as well.

Also, Wuerffel led Florida to two national title games, going 12-0 before the loss to Nebraska (not his fault—let us just say that Ron Zook was in his last game as Florida's defensive coordinator during the Nebraska game) and going 12-1 and avenging his only loss of the season against FSU the next year.

So, Tebow would need to lead Florida to the national title game next year just to tie Wuerffel, and would need to win it to surpass him.

Speaking of QBs that run Tim Tebow's offense: Vince Young. Claiming that Tebow's career to this point is better than Vince Young's is crazy.

Young was 30-2 as a starter, won a national title, was the first player in Division I-A to pass for 3,000 yards while rushing for 1,000, was the MVP of two straight Rose Bowls, and never lost a home game. (And this was with Mack Brown trying to turn Young into Chris Simms or Major Applewhite for more than half of his college career!)

So far from being "the best ever," Tebow has to win another national title before he can even claim to be the best I-A read option QB in the last five years!

How about a QB that didn't run Tim Tebow's offense but is certainly familiar with Vince Young: Matt Leinart! Huge numbers? Had them. Heisman? Check. Leinart also has two national titles to Tebow's one. Leinart was 37-2 as a starter with one loss in overtime and the second loss coming late in the fourth quarter to Vince Young and 12-0 Texas in the national title game.

So even if Tebow does win another national title and put up huge numbers and an undefeated season in doing so, Leinart will still have the better career.

The only way that Tebow can surpass Leinart is to win a second Heisman, and that would be by a hair, because anyone and everyone who saw Jason White's performances in BCS title games or Vince Young prove that he was a better player than both Leinart and Reggie Bush (no, USC fans, it wasn't Young's playing an exceptionally great game...the Rose Bowl wasn't even Young's best game that year, Ohio State was, and it was not even that much better than Young's first Rose Bowl performance) knows that any advantage that winning more Heismans gives Tebow over Leinart is small.

I place more importance on each of Tebow's TDs against LSU in 2006 than I do any Heisman.

Speaking of Vince Young, there is the issue of another QB from the Big 12 who never won a Heisman in Tommie Frazier. Honestly, even if Tim Tebow leads Florida to a 14-0 record with a consensus national title (meaning no Auburns and Utahs with a legitimate claim or argument), puts up big numbers, and wins another Heisman, he won't match Tommie Frazier.

Frazier won two national titles, both in perfect seasons. That is not all. Frazier came within a missed field goal (and very questionable officiating decisions that all favored FSU...fortunately the Cornhuskers had the class not to complain!) of winning three national titles in a row and seeing his Cornhuskers go more than three years without losing a single game.

Even that is not all. Frazier was practically a true four-year starter. He began his true freshman season on the bench, but soon won the starting job and led Nebraska to the Big 8 title, losing the Orange Bowl to FSU and Charlie Ward but more than covering the point spread to the heavily favored Seminoles and actually winning player of the game honors. Frazier also missed several games in his junior year due to blood clots.

His backup, the late Brook Berringer, had to step in during those games, and that, Gator and Tebow fans, was an actual "part-time starter" or "co-starter" arrangement.

But even with those mitigating factors, Nebraska lost five games in the four years that Tommie Frazier was there, and only one was a conference game. Frazier was the Orange Bowl MVP three years in a row, plus the Fiesta Bowl MVP. Frazier produced three undefeated regular seasons and two undefeated national title seasons, and again was a missed field goal as time expired against FSU from producing three.

I should also point out: Had the BCS existed in 1993, FSU would have never even played in that game. Nebraska would have played—and absolutely crushed—West Virginia, who also had an undefeated regular season. FSU played in the title game with a loss.

So where Frazier was harmed by the BCS by not getting to play West Virginia in 1993, Tim Tebow likely benefitted by avoiding USC in 2008. If Tebow threw two picks against Oklahoma's defense...well, USC had the best defense since Auburn in 1988. Meanwhile, Tommie Frazier's play in his three bowl games (again, all are now BCS games) was nearly flawless, which was why he was the MVP of even the two games that he lost.

The only way to make any case for Tebow's having been better than Tommie Frazier is to nullify in your minds the fact that Chris Leak was not only the unquestioned starter but leader and key player on offense of the 2006 team, and then credit Tebow with three titles to Frazier's two IF Tebow wins another title next year.

The amazing thing: Even if you do that, it is still mighty close, as Frazier will have still had the same or better winning percentage and four conference titles.

But once you acknowledge Tebow's true role in the 2006 team, he has no shot at catching Frazier no matter what he does next year. His only shot at surpassing Matt Leinart is winning a national title and a Heisman next year. And he needs to win a second conference title even to pass Vince Young. (That's right, Tebow and Young have the same number of conference titles: one.)

So Tim Tebow will need a great season next year (a conference title and BCS bowl game victory) even to pass Vince Young as the best dual threat QB of the decade, and even that won't get him past Danny Wuerffel as the best Florida QB ever, as Wuerffel was the starting QB for three SEC titles and a legitimate co-starter for a fourth.

He will need an outstanding season (national title plus Heisman) to surpass Matt Leinart as the best QB of the decade. And no matter what he does, he will not surpass Tommie Frazier as the greatest QB of the past two decades.

So the truth is that unless you whitewash Chris Leak from existence, Tebow has nowhere approaching a case for the best QB of the past 20 years, let alone the best college player ever, regardless of era or position. So in order to be truthful and honest, people need to quit lying. Tim Tebow is an excellent player and by all accounts a great person, but his career to this point comes nowhere close to justifying this "greatest ever" hype.

Again, that is just limiting the discussion to QBs...have SEC fans forgotten Herschel Walker? That is another guy that Tebow would have to win another national title before we can even start to talk about his surpassing.

So quit giving Tebow all of this undeserved hype, and give him (and other great players, including Chris Leak) no more or less than what they deserve.

Is Charlie Strong Arizona's Best Choice As Their New Football Coach?

Henry Milton — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 05:57:05 -0500

This is presuming that Mike Stoops, pictured above, leaves for Iowa State. So I am trying to get ahead of the curve!

I say yes. Charlie Strong is the defensive coordinator of the Florida Gators, who are playing for their second national title in four years, and Strong has been one of the top defensive coordinators in the country for 10 years.

Strong is an excellent recruiter and more importantly would bring a college emphasis to a league that for the last 35 years has been mostly trying and failing at being an NFL imitation. They run pro-style schemes on both sides of the ball, focus on Xs and Os more than recruiting, often go to the NFL for head and assistant coaches—and what is the result? USC is and has been that conference's only power.

It isn't East Coast bias—it is that USC and Washington are responsible for the Pac-10's two undefeated seasons since 1978.

USC can afford to continue to play NFL team if they want. But how many Pac-10 teams have USC's advantages: location plus tradition? Arizona actually has the potential to be a very strong regional program—and regional programs do win national titles from time to time—but compared to USC...come on. Arizona, in most cases, will be getting the players that USC doesn't want.

So they can either settle for competing with UCLA, Cal, ASU, and Washington for being No. 2 to USC, or they can run a completely different type of program. Incidentally, that is what Oregon has already done. So why not Chip Kelly? He is Oregon's head coach in waiting.

Also, Kelly is an offensive coach. The Pac-10 is filled with offensive coaches and needs a defensive emphasis. The better coaches, the ones that have actually won titles like the SEC and Big 12, traditionally have a mix of offensive and defensive coaches. The Pac-10 has always tilted heavily towards offense, and you see the result.

This isn't just "defense wins championships," by the way. After all, who says that a defensive coach can't have great offenses? Look at Bob Stoops at Oklahoma—or Pete Carroll at USC!

It comes down to instead of always hiring the same Pac-10 guys to run the same imitation NFL programs (and always the passing-oriented NFL teams at that—you don't see Pac-10 teams trying to emulate the NFL teams that emphasize the run game or defense), they need to get new blood, new philosophies, etc. into that conference.

They need someone who will hire college assistants, recruit college players, and run schemes that win on the college level...to build an outstanding college program.

That is what Arizona needs, and Charlie Strong is the best guy to do it. No big name head coach is going to leave the job that they have for Arizona. So it comes down to mid-major coaches and assistants.

Maybe Bronco Mendenhall, Kyle Whittingham, or Gary Patterson of Utah, TCU, or BYU would come, or perhaps Chris Petersen of Boise. (Pat Hill of Fresno State is a Pac-10 wannabe. Plus his accomplishments at Fresno are way overstated.) But none of those would represent the huge departure that Strong would represent.

As a matter of fact, Patterson would represent the only guy that isn't the type of hire that the Pac-10 already generally makes for coaches and assistants.

So call Patterson a very viable alternative to Strong, especially since Patterson has head coaching experience and it is easier to get Texas guys to Arizona than Florida guys. (Although do not pigeonhole Strong as an SEC coach—he has held assistant coaching jobs at Texas A&M, Southern Illinois, and Notre Dame.)

But as Strong would bring a clear defensive emphasis, very likely the read option offense (which Strong is familiar with not only from Meyer at Florida, but also from his time at Notre Dame and South Carolina), his knowledge of big-time programs that take football very seriously, and his proven ability to compete with the best for recruits (not only at Florida and Notre Dame, but also at clearly lesser jobs like South Carolina).

He would be a much better fit, especially when you consider that Strong has been an assistant head coach at Florida for eight years.

So Charlie Strong to Arizona. SEC to Pac-10. Not unusual at all, when you consider that the SEC has two Pac-10 guys in Rich Brooks (Kentucky) and Lane Kiffin (Tennessee) and recently had a third in Ed Orgeron (Ole Miss).

The SEC also has or recently had former ACC/Big East guys in Tommy Tuberville (Auburn) and Mark Richt (Georgia), former Big 12 and Michigan man Les Miles (LSU) a former Big Ten guy (Nick Saban of LSU and Alabama), and another former Midwestern/Western guy in Urban Meyer (Florida).

Getting new blood has clearly raised the level of competition for the SEC. No reason why it shouldn't do the same for the Pac-10.

Sorry USC, You Have No Case!

Henry Milton — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 07:28:51 -0500

USC Trojans quite naturally are of the general opinion that they deserve a shot at the national title, and are being unfairly denied because of bias against western football.

Curious that this bias did not prevent USC from splitting the AP title with an LSU team with a better record in 2003, or gaining a unanimous title over an Auburn team with a better record in 2004, but USC fans only seem to remember the times when the system did not give them what they wanted.

In any event, let us attend to USC's case for the title point by point.

1. USC has the No. 1 defense.

It is great that USC is using this argument this season, because if it works for them, they can give back their 2003 and 2004 AP titles. Why? Because LSU and Auburn were either No. 1 or No. 2 in defense in 2003 and 2004, and while USC's defense was good both years, they were not as close to the top as the defenses for Florida, Alabama, and Penn State are this year.

No, in 2003 and 2004, the USC argument was how they were piling on the points so fast that the SEC teams couldn't keep up. Now that it is Florida, Oklahoma, Texas, Texas Tech, and Penn State with the "we had our starters on the bench by midway through the third quarter!" offenses, now USC wants to use the "defense wins championships" argument? Obviously hypocrisy runs deep in college football.

But wait, you say, USC's defense is not only No. 1, but one of the greatest in history, probably the best ever!

Pardon me, but we have heard "best ever" superlatives about USC before, such as how the 2005 team was "the best ever" and how Reggie Bush, who has 1440 NFL career rushing yards at 3.6 per carry on a team with a great passing game and offensive line in three NFL seasons, was "the best college tailback since Gale Sayers."

Well, let us apply another argument from the USC 2003 - 2004 years to the current USC team: USC's defenses look great because they are playing bad offenses. The 11 teams that USC have played this year contained only ONE 2500 yard OR 20 TD passer, ND's Jimmy Clausen.

It contained only one rusher to surpass 1200 yards in a 12 game season (Jacquizz Rodgers, who torched USC for nearly 200 yards). And it did not contain a single 1,000-yard WR.

So, USC's historic defensive season came with QB Jimmy Clausen, RB Jacquizz Rodgers, RB Jahvid Best, RB Toby Gerhart (Stanford, who scored 23 points on USC in what was supposed to be a "revenge game" by the way, with Gerhart rushing for 100 yards), RB Jeremiah Johnson, and WR Sammie Stroughter being the only players that can be accused of being above average.

And some of these, particularly Clausen, would be exonerated of that accusation upon actually seeing him play against good teams.

Let us compare this with, say, the Big 12.

They have NINE passers with more than 2500 yards, including six with more than 3000 yards, and please consider Josh Freeman's 2,945 yards and Jerrod Johnson's 2435. I will grant you that there are only four above average rushers in the Big 12 (Tom Osborne, Bill McCartney, Darrell Royal, and Barry Switzer cannot be pleased), but Oklahoma has two of them.

Oklahoma's No. 1 tailback would be No. 5 in the Pac 10 in rushing, and their No. 2 tailback would be No. 6! (And that is with Sam Bradford having 4000 passing yards and 46 TDs.)

And where the Pac-10 has one WR with more than 750 yards and ZERO with more than 1000, the Big 12 has 14 and five such WRs, respectively.

So, is it great USC defense or bad offenses of USC opponents? Well, when you consider that Penn State held an Ohio State team that actually had Chris Wells at RB and Terrelle Pryor at QB to six points, I will let you answer that question.

(USC fans still feel free to claim Ohio State as their only victory against the top 15 knowing full well that the Todd Boeckman-Noah Herron offense that they played would have struggled to achieve seven wins.)

USC fans can counter with the meager SEC offensive statistics. That is fine. I am only pointing out that USC's longtime argument against the SEC should be applied to itself. And since the SEC is a national best by far 11-4 in BCS games, including a perfect record in BCS title games (where USC is batting .500 in title games), it has been demonstrated that its mediocre offenses are no impediment.

But that is the SEC's argument, not USC's. USC needs to stick with their own longtime argument and declare Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, and Florida to be more worthy based on it.

2. Record/strength of schedule.

Alabama is undefeated. I will accept anyone's argument that a one-loss team should be preferred to an undefeated major college team when they are willing to apply it to their own team. "We had the best record but you know, we are just not that good, so we will just play for No. 2 this year and be happy." Any takers? USC fans? Anyone? Didn't think so.

Oklahoma - Texas - Texas Tech: All of those teams have played three opponents in the BCS top 15, with two of them in the BCS top seven. Texas played four of the BCS top 20. So, what is the argument of USC, whose single game against the BCS top 20 came against a team that was playing backups at QB and RB at the time (not to mention the fact that at WR backups is all Ohio State has)?

USC will say, "But they played a weak non-conference schedule!" All right, so let's say that 5-7 Virginia and 6-6 ND override having to play all those 11-1 and 10-2 teams whose only losses were to each other. Against Oklahoma, who played No. 11 TCU and No. 13 Cincinnati out of conference, to go along with the Pac 10's own Washington, your case is ridiculous.

Florida: So they played the Citadel. Tell you what...Let's exclude them. Result: If Florida wins the SEC championship game, then you will be able to match their 12 games against I-A competition against USC's. Result: A clear advantage for Florida.

Ten bowl eligible teams versus seven, and even that assumes that Arizona State beats Arizona and gets Mike Stoops fired this weekend. Oh yes, and even in that scenario, both Arizona schools will need to use victories over I-AA teams to be eligible.

So not only will USC only have seven bowl-eligible opponents at best, but three of them (Arizona, Arizona State, Notre Dame) will qualify at 6-6. I also like the fact that Arizona and Arizona State would not only use victories over I-AA teams, but victories over Washington and Washington State, teams that have combined for a single victory against I-A...the overtime game where they played each other!

So yes, go ahead and complain about Alabama opponents Western Kentucky and Arkansas State. As both of those are I-A teams, there is no guarantee that UW or WSU would beat either of them, especially Arkansas State, who is actually bowl eligible.

That's right...USC fans who bash Alabama's weak schedule ignore that Alabama will have actually played the more bowl eligible teams: eight.

Florida also has quality in addition to quantity. One opponent in the BCS top five to ZERO (Alabama), three opponents in the BCS top 25 to two (Alabama, Georgia, Florida State to Oregon and Ohio State, and again we all know that the Ohio State team that USC faced would have struggled to finish 7 - 5).

The best part: USC's season-long line about how Oregon State was "a better loss" than Ole Miss is now gone. First off, neither team is in the BCS top 25. Second, Ole Miss is ranked above Oregon State in the AP and Harris Poll and is only one vote behind Oregon State in USA Today (they are 28 votes ahead in Harris).

It is more than just records, by the way. Where Oregon State suffered a 30-point loss, a 27-point loss, and worst of all an eight-point loss to a losing team, Ole Miss A) saw all their losses to bowl eligible teams and B) did not have a single loss by more than seven points.

Also, where USC represented Oregon State's only strong performance against a top team (unless you think that there is some merit to losing by only three to a mid-major!), Ole Miss also nearly beat Alabama.

So, Oregon State's performance against USC was a fluke that can only be held against USC, especially after OSU gave up 65 points to Oregon on the very same Corvallis field that USC fans have spent months claiming is oh so tough to play. By contrast, Ole Miss was literally three plays from being 11-1 and headed to the SEC title game for a rematch against Florida and a shot at the national title.

You can blame Ole Miss for being 2-4 in close games, but chalk that up to a team that did not have a single player that had ever so much as played a bowl game learning how to win.

So what's Oregon State's excuse? That they just aren't that good. That is why they are claiming that having a 5'6" 170lb. true freshman tailback would have somehow kept them from getting run off their own home field in the program's biggest game in nearly 50 years. Ole Miss is a very talented team that Ed Orgeron had no clue how to coach.

Penn State: That's right, Penn State. Penn State has the same record as USC. Penn State is a talented team with a great offense and strong defense. It is true that USC has played a tougher schedule. It is equally true, however, that in matchups against common opponents, USC is 1-1 where Penn State is 2-0.

And yes, Penn State actually played the Ohio State team that is worthy of their top 10 BCS ranking...the one with Chris Wells and Terrelle Pryor in the starting lineup. USC played the Ohio State team that would have lost to Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Michigan State and may have even had trouble with Northwestern and Illinois.

So the actual common opponents record is 1-0 against 0-1, with Penn State blowing out by 30 the only team to beat USC. And they say that there is a bias against western teams? Well, apparently Penn State must be based in Hawai'i, because there is no justification for USC to be ranked over PSU.

And USC fans: Don't root for Oklahoma to lose to Missouri. Because if it happens, Texas will go to the title game, not you. But Texas isn't the Big 12 champs you say? Texas will say that it isn't their fault. They beat both participants of the Big 12 title game, and were one big play at the end of the game from being undefeated.

Also, USC fans negated that argument by rooting for Oregon State to win the Pac-10 so you could escape the Big 10 matchup in the Rose Bowl and claim to deserve the AP title for blowing out Texas in case Oklahoma beat Florida.

I am not making this up, Ted Miller, the longtime West Coast media guy who does the Pac 10 blog for ESPN was promoting just such a scenario, and he was far from the first USC partisan advocating this idea. So all that outrage that West Coast fans generated over Oklahoma and Nebraska getting to play for the national title despite winning their conference?

Out the window.

You can't turn around and reject an argument that you were going to use yourself, especially since that argument represented a reversal of your prior position. But then again, the "defense wins championships" argument is a reversal of the USC 2003-2004 position against LSU and Auburn, so who cares right? As long as it benefits our team!

So, USC fans, you are right where you should be at No. 5. No, actually, you should be No. 6 behind Penn State, and possibly even be No. 7 behind Texas Tech. Tech played two I-AA teams, but you guys played UW and WSU, so let's call it even and give Tech the clear advantage in the portions of each of your schedules that had a pulse!

Now, I will not insult USC by claiming that they should be No. 8 behind undefeated Utah. But that is more consideration than many USC and West Coast fans gave Auburn in 2004 when lots of them, including this same Ted Miller, stated that Auburn's case for a split title was no better than Utah's, and that Utah would probably take Auburn on a neutral field.

Bottom Line

USC is not the best of the six one-loss teams but is actually the least accomplished and the least deserving. Instead of being a victim of bias, USC is actually overvalued by virtue of being ranked over Texas Tech and Penn State, and certainly by virtue of still having media members at this very second plotting for ways for USC to get into the title game, and would certainly be plotting a way to get them the AP title (their only loss was on the road to the Pac-10 champs!) had Oregon simply complied.