lordnate

Rodger Goodell does a lot to protect the NFL brand, but its almost to a point where it hurts it. Destroying the evidence on the Spy Gate Tapes and not bringing forward the evidence on the Bounty Gate scandal was either due to a Goodell backed conspiracy or he just didn't want the public to know how bad these things really were. If its the 2nd theory, I think he's over doing the protect the brand thing. People aren't going to hate the NFL and ban it when people doing bad things get caught. I think he makes the situation worse, because without the evidence, we can dream up the worst possible ideas for what happened. I also don't like how to hands out suspensions. He will suspend a player for getting into legal issues even when the player was not convicted. I know sometimes players get away with crimes they shouldn't, but a suspension should not occur based on speculation. Then he'll always put in a non-exact suspension to later be reviewed, just to create suspense. A perfect example of all of this is when he suspended Roethlisberger 4-6 weeks. 4 or 6 weeks, which is it? Was he even guilty of a crime? I'm one that actually believes Roethlisberger was at least somewhat to blame for his rape situation, but without proof its nothing more than speculation. I could make a long list of different suspensions and fines I disagreed with for various reasons. I'm not a fan of Goodell.

I like passer rating with a few exceptions. Pass attempts. Passer rating in and of itself is really just an average. It just combines several stats to get that average. The problem with averages, is that attempts tend to give out diminishing returns. If you pass the ball 40 times a game, you'll most likely have a lower passer rating than if you throw the ball 25 times a game. Now, it still correlates to wins, as a QB that doesn't throw the ball much normally wins. Most teams follow the philosophy, "pass to get the lead and run to seal the deal." If your QB has low pass attempts and your team isn't winning, chances are the HC doesn't trust him with the ball. The only other thing to consider with passer rating and QBs, is that passer rating is not 100% determined by the QB. If the QB hits a RB on a screen pass and the RB runs for a 50 yard TD, it counts the same as if the QB completes a 50 yard pass down field in the end zone. A QB with better players around him will have a better passer rating. Looking at your list, I doubt any expert would put Alex Smith ahead of Tom Brady or Peyton Manning. Alex Smith benefited from both of my reasons passer rating is flawed. He played on one of the best teams in the league and he had very low pass attempts per game. His passer rating over-rates him, probably more than any other QB in the league. You can see, that Colin Kaepernick had very similar results. Russell Wilson was on a very similar team and also was highly rated. Its hard for me to imagine that 3 of the top 4 QBs in the league were in the same division and two were on the same team. That would be an extreme rarity. IMO, passer rating is fairly close, but you have to adjust for several things. Its very hard to rate supporting cast accurately, so that adjustment is hard. I'm sure with some studying your could figure out how much to adjust for pass attempts per game.

I have to co-sign with the OP. Very good list.

There is no toughest position. The harder a position is, the more expected error there is expected to occur, which lowers the standard. You can make this argument across sports too. In MLB, a good batting average is anything above .300 or 30%. That is absolutely horrible, if you are talking free throws in the NBA. The degree of difficulty, changes the standards to balance out. You simply cannot find a player that bats .850 like you can find free throw shooters that make it over 85% of the time. The only way to have a toughest, is to have a very specific definition of toughest. The toughest positions to make an NFL roster at, are the positions with the fewest roster spots. KR and PR would be your toughest positions then. You can also define toughest position as most physically demanding. I'd have to say RB is probably the toughest position in that case. RBs usually don't last as long as players in other positions, because they take so much punishment. I think perceptions of toughest also have to do with ones self. Personally, I have felt that CB is probably the toughest position, but then again I'm built more like a lineman, so I've never had the talent to really cover anyone.

Jim Schwartz should be on the hot seat. Out of all of the coaches on that list, he has the worst record. Last year, with a 4-12 season with stars like Megatron, Stafford, and Suh, is just terrible. Another season like that and he should be gone. The only saving grace I'll give him, is that the Lions are used to losing and that might allow them to give him a pass. Rex Ryan is next on the hot seat, though I had a hard time deciding between him and Schwartz. Ryan actually has decent success compared to the other coaches on this list, but he's got such a big mouth he talks himself into trouble. Gary Kubiak and Marvin Lewis really haven't done enough to deserve to get fired. They are on the hot seat because they just haven't done anything to make their teams glad they hired them. At some point, these coaches are going to have to accomplish something great or lose their jobs. I understand why Mike Munchak and Ron Rivera are on this list due to lack of success, but they are the least tenured coaches on the list as well. I could see them getting a little more time to build a team. Jason Garrett is the safest coach on this list. He probably shouldn't be, but Jerry Jones hates to admit mistakes and he'll give Garrett every opportunity to succeed. Jason will coach through 2014, but he could get fired after the 2014 season as 2015 is when I believe the Cowboys will begin the rebuilding process. Not because they want to, Jerry always wants to win now, but because of salary cap mismanagement, they won't have a choice.

1) RBs will probably evade less tackles in a goal-line situation because they have less room to work. 2) Morris doesn't yet have the body of work to really say exactly what he is. Peterson is an absolute beast and IMO, the clear cut number 1 RB in the league. I was impressed enough with Martin coming out of college, that I actually thought as a rookie he is a potential hall of famer. He has that same compact frame that Emmitt Smith had. Marshawn Lynch is the best pure power runner in the league. So, there are 4 guys that did significantly better, but I would also put those guys in the elite group. 3) Stats regression is a trend, but its not 100% the same for every back. It depends on the health of the back throughout the season. Some RBs will end up regressing more than others with more carries, just due to circumstance. Still Foster does tend to have similar stats every season even in terms of missed tackles and yards after contact. I would put all four of the RBs you listed ahead of him, but that would be Foster at about 5th. I'd say top 5 is elite. Additional I wouldn't put any of the RBs that are speed backs ahead of Foster. IMO, the most important role for a RB is being able to finish drives. I looked at a statistical breakdown one time that showed passing is statistically more efficient than running on all parts of the field except inside the 10 yard line. That doesn't mean you should pass on every down, but where you really need to run is in goal-line situations. Arian Foster has lead the league in TDs twice in the past 3 years. This is running in a zone blocking scheme that people have been telling me, is weak in short yardage situations. TDs aren't the end all, but I'll list some of the better TD machines at RB in the NFL over the past 3 years below. 1. Arian Foster 42 2. Adrian Peterson 36 3. Michael Turner 33 After these three, it gets hard to find as these are the only three with double digit TDs in all three of the past 3 years. (I just looked up TD leaders on ESPN.com) Lynch has come on in Seattle with double digit TDs in each of the past 2 years. I think most people would agree with me, though Michael Turner is on this list, he's in decline. Then Foster has another ability, though it didn't show up in the stat book last season, Arian Foster is a well respected receiving back. With the league getting more pass happy, RBs that can catch passes out of the back field are needed. I've never heard anyone say Turner or Lynch were good receiving backs. Take it as a grain of salt since it comes from the Bleacher Report, but this list from 2011 has Arian Foster as the 2nd best receiving back in the league. http://bleacherreport.com/articles/763365-the-top-15-receiving-threats-from-the-running-back-position/page/15

I think there is a huge piece to the puzzle missing. Something that many people seem to over look. The production of a RB is largely dependent on what part of the field he normally gets the ball. If a RB gets most of his carries at mid field, he's going to have a much higher rush average than if he's getting all his carries down around the goal-line. I believe that many speed backs are over-rated because most of them are not used in goal-line situations, but they rack of the stats running at mid field. Unfortunately I don't have the statistics on Arian Foster and what part of the field he normally gets the ball at. What I can say is that he lead the league in rushing TDs, which indicates that he got a lot of red zone carries. Maybe this is why his yards after contact is so low. If you break a tackle on the 1-yard line, you're not going to get more than one yard. If you break a tackle at the 50 yard line, you can potentially, get 50 yards after contact on that play. Further, I would assume his broken tackles would go down when running in short yardage situations as defenses have bigger guys on the field, he has less room to make a defender miss, and he'd get caught up in more gang tackles. Another factor to look at is attempts. A RB that leads the league in attempts, like Arian Foster, typically sees his stats per carry diminish. To get a lot of rush attempts, a RB has to play through more fatigue and typically ends up having to play through injuries. Not necessarily things that end up on the injury report either, but just the normal wear and tear that the game puts on the player's body throughout the season. It is more than likely that he played some games where he wasn't 100%. I think the main reason why Arian Foster tends to be under-rated by some is that his game isn't flashy. He just plays solid football. He doesn't have blazing speed, an elite juke move, or amazing power. He's not Chris Johnson or Marshawn Lynch, but he's good at everything you'd want a RB to do and that's usually harder to stop than the more highlight reel friendly one dimensional backs. Further, he's a low profile guy. He went undrafted and doesn't do a lot to bring attention to himself. To add to it, he plays for the Texans who are 24th in the league in popularity. http://espn.go.com/blog/nflnation/post/_/id/59058/where-every-nfl-team-ranks-in-popularity

I don't buy this logic that RBs in zone blocking schemes are automatically productive. If that was the case, then why doesn't every team run a zone blocking scheme? Actually, teams run pretty diverse play books and most teams run at least some zone block plays. So, every team kind of does run a zone blocking scheme. I guess zone block teams are just teams that run it more often. It just doesn't make sense, if this scheme guarantees production with any back, that every team doesn't use it all the time. There has to be a draw back. Maybe you need more talent at other positions to make it work. I know you need quick lineman. Does zone block put more pressure on your lineman to make good blocks? If that were true, then couldn't you blame the OL if a zone block RB doesn't preform well? How would zone block be any kind of indication of a RB one way or another if the success is not dependent on the RB.