New Breakfast Served on Thursdays

"The Breakfast Table is a (mostly) morning e-mail exchange between football writers and friends Mike Salfino and Scott Pianowski. Always snappy, sometimes snippy but never high in carbs, the BT's main course is an in-depth analysis of the latest NFL developments. But side dishes of music, movies, television and the rest of the cultural zeitgeist are ordered up when the mood strikes. Salfino is stuck somewhere in the swamps of Jersey. Pianowski lives above the desiccated remains of Jimmy Hoffa in Michigan. They've been tabling together since 2002."

Strange Brew Breakfast

From: Michael Salfino <salfino@comcast.net>
Date: December 5, 2006 9:19:42 AM EST
To: scott pianowski <spianow@gmail.com>
Subject: Week 14 Breakfast

First of all, every single division is basically locked up with four weeks to play. Unheard of. So, the death of parity, right? Well, then what about four 6-6 teams fighting for two wildcard slots in the NFC and five 7-5 teams doing the same in the AFC? And with all these early division winners, you'd think there'd be a dominant team or two that's emerged. But I don't see one. Yes, the Bears fit the bill at the quarter turn, but that might as well have been last year for what it's worth now given Rex Grossman's woe (Lovie Smith: "We're doing well! We're staying the course at QB. I will not cut and run on Rex.")

Do you believe in the Chargers in a big spot? Not me. Marty Schottenheimer will coach himself out of a game the first chance he gets; he's riding LaDainian Tomlinson too much at the expense of the vanishing passing game and the last 30 years of playoff history has conclusively proved that running backs don't win diddly-squat in January. Dungy also looks like he's trying out various losing January scenarios. The Patriots are always dangerous and know how to play, but the injuries have taken a toll. I think the Bengals are extremely dangerous, but they're going to be a No. 5 seed at best. I think we're in agreement that the Cowboys are the class of the NFC, but they might be the No. 3 seed even if they win out because that Seahawks schedule is a joke.

Now, I fully understand not being able to get a good reading on things in August. But it's December and I still feel like Burgess Meredith in that "Twilight Zone" when he cracked his glasses after nearly realizing his lifelong dream to read every book in creation in the peace of a post-apocalyptic world. Everything is a blur. (Is Meredith in "Rocky Balboa" or is the only corpse in that flick Sylvester Stallone? I did enjoy Stallone's spot on Monday Night Football, seriously.) So, help me find some clarity. Week 14 Breakfast is served.

From: "scott pianowski" <spianow@gmail.com>
Date: December 6, 2006 12:55:19 PM EST
To: "Michael Salfino" <salfino@comcast.net>
Subject: shuffle up and deal

I don't accept that this year is any weirder than any other year. Every season has its own goofy ebb and flow to it, a pattern that no one could really visualize ahead of time; that's life in a reshuffle league. And that underscores why we should greatly respect the small handful of teams that are consistently good, because it's not an easy thing to pull off.

Week 13 was a tricky time to judge the major contenders in the AFC. The Chargers and Patriots won ugly, the Ravens and Colts lost. Let's not blow off the importance of the No. 5 and No. 6 seeds here; the Steelers Cinderella Story is fresh in everyone's mind, and I'm never surprised when the Bengals, Jets, or even the schizoid Jaguars have their way over an opponent. And the Chiefs have to be respected even with last week's endgame from hell; Trent Green is getting sharp again, Larry Johnson can still run over or through any defense, and the KC defense is normally a credible group, assuming it's not playing a road game in the AFC North. I'm giving them a mulligan for last week.

I think you're selling the Chargers short. The 4-0 run without Shawne Merriman meant nothing to you? The major comebacks at Cincinnati and Denver didn't make an impression? Late-season games in Buffalo are always tricky; I'm not docking the Bolts because they left the style points on the plane. And if not for a last-minute Buffalo TD, that's a 10-point win. These guys are legit.

If you were the Cowboys and knew you couldn't get extended home field, would you want to first attack the Seahawks or the Bears on the road? It's a tricky question - both sites are hellish to play at, and if Seattle gets Matt Hasselbeck up to speed, they'll be a much more balanced opponent than the Tyrannosaurus Rex Bears. I absolutely agree that Dallas is the best team in the conference right now, just not sure they can take both of these teams down in consecutive weeks, after winning a Round One game at that. But we'll see how the seeds shake down, I guess.

Let's give Lovie Smith some truth serum and find out how close Rex Grossman is to losing the job, if not the locker room. Chicago has a cookie schedule the rest of the way, which sets up two contrasting arguments: does it help Grossman to (possibly) get his groove back against losing teams, or does it hurt him that he doesn't have a "credibility building" opponent left on the schedule - no matter what he does in the final month, the doubt in everyone's mind (Grossman's included) is going to be present. If I were the Bears, I'd want one good dress rehearsal waiting in December, and I don't see it.

Speed round: The Jets, Chiefs and Falcons could be singing the same song on January - how did we lose to the friggin' Browns? . . . This is the sloppiest team I can remember in the Belichick-New England era . . . I was sad when the Jets-Packers first half ended. It was fun watching Chad Pennington cut up their zone for all those long scoring drives. Of course the yahoos in the booth kept dishing out the Favre Soup . . . Just how good was this rookie class of running backs? I can't wait until these guys get starting jobs in 2007, because it's been frustrating watching players like Joseph Addai, DeAngelo Williams and others sit behind inferior options. Second-year stud Marion Barber III also belongs in that category (how much proof do we need? He's clearly a more complete and dynamic back than Julius Jones, that's my story and I'm sticking to it.)

I'll give you the first shot at the wild card shuffle, so deal when ready.

From: Michael Salfino <salfino@comcast.net>
Date: December 6, 2006 5:51:34 PM EST
To: scott pianowski <spianow@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: shuffle up and deal

The Steelers weren't such a surprise last year. We both said heading into the Indy game that if they opened things up, they could give the Colts lots of trouble. But neither of us thought that would happen. Of course, we disagree now about whether it even did. I know I'm going against empirical observation and feel everywhere here, but the data backs me up completely. Cowher appeared to throw more in last year's postseason because (A) the running game sucked eggs so badly he had no choice and (B) Roethlisberger made huge, game-turning plays on second and third and long.

The lesson, however, is to isolate the two most important of the stats I track: net yards per (passing) attempt (YPA) and net points (TD passes) per attempt (PPA). Pittsburgh was No. 1 last year in both categories (this year, they're 8th and 14th). Which of our wildcard teams has a something best approaching this profile? (It's unheard of for a team No. 1 in both these stats to be a wildcard team, but that's Cowher for you.)

Looking at those two stats, who are our sleeper teams? The teams that rank best in these categories, combined, are the Cowboys, Bears and Eagles. Dallas, we know about. The Bears are deceptive because Grossman is likely significantly worse right now than his year-to-date numbers. The Eagles, of course, have lost McNabb. But Philly is interesting because their defensive-only numbers are solid: fourth in YPA allowed, eight in PPA allowed. Garcia shocked me Monday night against a good Panthers pass defense. If that's anywhere near for real, the Eagles are going to the playoffs. But I don't think either of us thinks Garcia is for real, and you've always been his only fan here.

The next best team in these two net categories? The Colts (no surprise) and the Bengals (which surprises some who haven't tracked their improving pass defense sans the San Diego game). I think Cincy is the only dangerous team of the five and six seeds in either conference. But, as you said, they might not even make it. I say they do pull off at least one upset. Forget about the Chiefs, as their pass defense is showing steady signs of collapse.

New England is right behind Indy and Cincy in those two statistics, but number one in net PPA (they're 11th in net YPA). They're also No. 1 in net red zone possessions and No. 3 in Move Net (runs plus completions). If you could tell me my team was going to be best in one category, I'd pick net YPA. But if you gave me two categories, I'd bypass YPA and pick PPA and Move Net because that's the formula to win consistently. Beat teams on the scoreboard early with the passing game and then beat the clock late by controlling the ball with your move plays. So, in sum, I'm more bullish on the Patriots than you. But the injuries on defense are adding up and I don't know what New England has behind these guys, though it's usually good enough.

The other interesting note about New England that I uncovered this week has to do with Brady. He's having a great year in scoring the ball efficiently, of course. He's been amazing inside the 10, especially. But his efficiency on and attempts of passes 11-to-20 yards are way down. The decline in attempts from 23 percent of all passes to about 14 percent rings all kinds of alarm bells because it just doesn't make sense in the absence of any arm trouble. If the shoulder is barking for real, a good defense will exploit it. Heck, the Jets exploited it (even though they are playing some kick-ass pass defense of late).

Where's Jerious Norwood on your list of rookie backs. I suspect he's absent because you still have a soft spot for Warrick Dunn, who is screaming out to be benched at least as loudly as all the other guys you noted. Williams, of course, has a very strong case, too. And he's back to the second team. I don't get it. I haven't noted Addai because that's old news around these parts and my well is dry on that.

This brings me to my prediction of the week. The Jaguars will beat the Colts. Jacksonville is the sleeper team if you look at all my stats. Garrard doesn't throw picks and the Colts need that edge to win convincingly now. They somehow think they're a complete team and are trying to win low-scoring games. I think Dungy has lost his mind. Maybe it's wishful thinking. But the Colts are (mostly) a bunch of bums with probably the greatest QB who ever lived at the helm. Without Manning they'd win, what, three games? Four tops? Shove him and those receivers down the opponent's throat and blow someone out already. You better start now because you can't count on cranking it up in January when you're down multiple scores and doubt has set in.

People think the Colts are a fraud for all the wrong reasons. It's not because they consistently lose the Battle At The Line of Scrimmage. So do the Bears, Bengals, Jets and Saints to name just a few. That brings me to my favorite stat in the history of my charting stats. Season to date, top 10 team in net yards per rush attempt HAVE A WORSE COMBINED WON-LOSS RECORD than the 10 WORST teams in net yards per rush. I wish I had a sock filled with manure to shove in the mouth of every talking head who yaps so ignorantly about the cherished running game. (Note to Steve Moyer: there's your breakfast reference, as that would surely taste better than the corned beef hash here at the Tick Tock Diner). I will settle for this factoid, however. Yes, it's a bit of a fluke, I'm sure. But I'd bet my house that this couldn't happen after 12 games worth of YPA stats. Not in a million years.

From: "scott pianowski" <spianow@gmail.com>
Date: December 7, 2006 12:02:55 PM EST
To: "Michael Salfino" <salfino@comcast.net>
Subject: cool for cats

We're never going to see the Steelers-Colts game the same way, I think we've both accepted that. Seventeen of the first 24 Pittsburgh snaps were designed pass plays (there was one sack in there). That's not opening things up? Granted, once Pittsburgh grabbed the 14-0 lead the team's strategy changed, and you can argue it was premature at that. But they came out aggressively.

Someday we'll figure out the true meaning of YPA and PPA and if they're more causation or correlation. Teams that can throw it early and run it late certainly win with regularity in the NFL (as you mention), while the poor teams throwing the ball and playing catchup late are asking for their YPAs to get crushed - there's no offensive balance, and the opposing pass rush can tee off. We also need to find a way to get sacks into the equation - it's the defense's best friend short of a turnover, and every hit you put on the other team's QB has an effect, quantifiable or not.

I sold Garcia for good last year in Detroit and I'm stunned he's played as well as he has the last two weeks. The underrated Redskins are primed to pick off Philadelphia this week, though (call it 27-24, Washington). Santana Moss is looking healthy again. Ladell Betts, lo' and behold, can actually move the pile. The secondary has a chance now that people are healthy again. Look for the Redskins to finish strong and delude everyone into thinking they're a sleeper team for 2007.

Cincinnati is very dangerous because Palmer has made it all the way back. He's had seven fantastic games out of eight, with the only stinker coming in the first Baltimore meeting (neatly avenged last week). There's been some personnel changes on the defense, much overdue. But at the end of the day it probably comes down to this: Can the Bengals outscore people in January? With this passing game I think you always have a shot.

We'll see who the Chiefs are this week when they look to defend Arrowhead against the Ravens. Getting carved up by the Cleveland passing game is embarrassing, we both know that. But how can we ignore the fact that for almost three months this secondary was very solid? I still don't trust Steve McNair, and Larry Johnson is still one of the few backs in the league who can decide a game. Kansas City isn't dead yet; call it 20-13, Chiefs.

I don't like this week's matchup for the Patriots, as the Dolphins can steal from the Jets blueprint and probably execute it even better than New York did (though the transformation of the Jets defense is real, and impressive). If New England's going to win this week, it's because the defense was able to get to Joey Harrington. But I'm concerned Brady is going to get knocked around for 60 minutes again. This is a 3-point game either way. It's scary that I've started to believe in Reche Caldwell.

I'm a little late to the party but I love Jerious Norwood, as you know from backstage discussions (between you, Liss and I, we're practically the Norwood mafia). Jim Mora is crazy for not finding 10-15 touches every week for his best back. Norwood isn't just a home run threat, either - I've seen all the Atlanta tapes and he's very capable of moving the pile inside. Play your best players, dammit.

If John Fox trots out DeShaun Foster for his most critical game of the year, he deserves to lose on general principle. How much proof do they need? It's maddening. Foster can't do the things Williams was doing at The Linc Monday night. Give me the Giants, who showed up and played well enough to win for the most part against Dallas. I don't like Carolina's linebackers and New York has the right stuff to exploit that weakness.

Give me the Jags over the Colts, too. Indy's dance recital doesn't like the physical way the Jags play. Maurice Jones-Drew had his way with the Colts in the last meeting. Matt Jones finally looks ready to make an impact. You're right when you mention the only special thing about the Colts is Manning and his receivers. Addai could enter the mix if Dungy would allow it, but Dominic Rhodes must be a really good guy or something, so the baton hasn't been passed yet. Jags 26, Colts 24.

From: Michael Salfino <salfino@comcast.net>
Date: December 7, 2006 12:39:06 PM EST
To: scott pianowski <spianow@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: cool for cats

Quick reply. Forget about ancient history. But, prospectively and for all time, aggressiveness in play calling is best defined by run/pass splits on first down (and especially in the first half). It's a fact that Pittsburgh threw no more on first down in building the big leads against Indy and Denver than they did during the regular season (when they threw the ball the lowest percentage of first-down plays in the NFL). Yes, we can say that Pittsburgh threw X-percentage of total plays. But who cares if most of those plays were clear passing downs even for Cowher: second and third and long.

David Hume noted long ago that you can never prove causation. The correlation-causation argument is useful only in demonstrating the logical fallacy of assuming that correlation necessarily proves causation. We can only logically deduce whether things that correlate have a causal relationship. You've done the heavy lifting here, as you've noted that teams that pass early and much more effectively than their opponents are very likely build up big leads. That's as far as we need to go, I think. I mean, you wouldn't say that teams that run the ball much better than their opponent are nearly as likely to dominate on the scoreboard. What's left? Special teams? There's no correlation between special team dominance and winning and we both know that if you don't have correlation, you cannot have causation. So, nothing else is left. Something must cause winning and passing is the only house standing.

Finally, my YPA stats factor in sack yardage. Not all do and what you note about sacks should always be remembered as a check to make sure whatever stats you're looking at factor only net passing yards when looking at YPA gained and allowed.