Quick thoughts and then I'm off to bed. As I doubt no Cowboys fan likes to write about losing to the Redskins, no Redskins fan likes to talk about losing to the Cowboys. I'm brief because I hate the territory.

• The offensive play calling was not good. Normally when we convert 3rd downs I have some sense that it was due in large part to a well designed play. This entire game, barring one screen pass which I thought was well timed, when we converted on third down (so, really, the other four times, as we went an awful 5 of 14 on the most important down) it felt like great individual effort by the players. It is never fair to blame exclusively the coaching staff, or the players, for a loss, but this one felt like coaching.
• Clinton Portis is a man. He came out and ran despite injury and I respect him more and more as this season moves forward. His pockets are, indeed, straight.
• 3.6 yards is how many we had per passing attempt. I read a lot of box scores post-Redskins games and I cannot recall the last time that number was lower. That includes sacks, but even without we're well below 5 yards per attempt. That's just dog meat. How many times does the well have to come up dry before you stop lobbing to the sideline. If it doesn't work the first two times -- and by doesn't work I mean getting tackled for a loss or somewhere around there -- it's not going to work. Even when that play is working you shouldn't go there more than 3-4 times a game. They watch game tapes, ya know?
  
• I hate when the Cowboys succeed at anything, but I appreciate the logic in going for it late in the game with a 4 point lead. Wade Phillips had guts for doing that and I respect him for it. One of the reasons I love Jim Zorn is because he's not afraid to go for it, so I can't well criticize the other bastard for sharing similar sentiments, especially when they succeed. We went for it on 4th and 4 with 6 minutes left. I imagine many of you are going to have something to say about that decision. I loved it, we didn't convert, that sucks, but I thought it was the right call.
• 228 yards of offense? On an average day, the worst offense in the league (Bengals) gets 240 someodd yards. That just sucks and it tells the entire story of the game, which probably wasn't as close as the score.
• The defense played better than I'm feeling about them right now. Fresh in my mind is Marion Barber and company running down our throats seemingly at will, but the box score looks fine. 315 yards drags the Cowboys' season average down, two turnovers, nothing ridiculous on either yards per rush or passing attempt... A slightly high third down percentage (5/11, lower, actually, than the Cowboys' season average) is the only thing bothersome I see. You should've stopped them at the end, defense, but why do we deserve to win any games if we can't score more than 10 points? We'd be 0-9 this year with 10 points per game.

Congrats Dallas, etc. I'm not in panic mode just yet, but we looked strong at the beginning of the season and progressively worse since. Getting demolished by the Steelers, beaten by the Rams, and struggling to beat the Lions and Browns is not good. I don't know where that week two through five team went, but I miss them.

Kickoff: 8:15 PM Eastern at beautiful FedEx field, where the weather looks to be cold with a chance of miserable. Now the good news: Tonight's lunar cycle is the Waning Gibbous variety which, I'm told:

As the moon wanes, the darkness creeps in as shown in the lower line of Xun in the waning gibbous phase. The waning crescent that is two-thirds dark is represented by the two yin/dark lower lines of the trigram Gen. Coming full cycle, we arrive back at Kun and the next new moon.

Saaaaweeeeeat.

Cloudy and cold with 10-15 MPH winds in the evening is the word from some weather website. Low is 31 degrees, so expect modestly dressed Cheerleaders prancing around with smiles and shivers.

All kinds of neato badeato stuff available at Blogging the Boys for the upcoming game. Previews, Q&As, etc. Go enjoy.

Injury Report:

Cowboys: Isaiah Stanback is out. More importantly, Felix Jones is out. He wasn't much of an issue in the first game, but I blame that on poor coaching by the Cowboys as they failed to use him properly. He can play, but not today.

LB Bobby Carpenter is also out. He's a role player, no big shakes. Probable is a laundry list of people, highlights: Leonard Davis, Terence Newman, Tony Romo will play, and Jason Witten. I expect to see them all out.

Redskins: Clinton Portis is questionable and probably will not play. Shawn Springs is questionable but I don't know if he will play, if any reader(s) can update that status as news comes in, that'd be just swell. Anthony Montgomery is out struck down by his achilles heel, which is where his mother held him over the burning hearth to give him his invulnerability everywhere except there. That's why whenever Trojans get Achilles' heel injuries, perhaps by arrows applied directly at, people always think of Anthony Montgomery. I may have this mixed up.

Probable are: Malcolm Kelly who I've read elsewhere will play, Pete Kendall, Santana Moss, Chris Samuels, Jason Taylor -- I've read he'll play, Devin Thomas, Marcus Washington, and Ladell Betts, who we need desparately without Clinton Portis.

Ben will have some info up later on at The Curly R. He managed an interview with Chris Horton earlier this week which is simply phenomenal. Horton sounds grounded and awesome, I really like this kid and couldn't be happier with the way he's playing this year. Redskins.com Gameday. Hog Heaven will have something up later, etc.

Prediction: I'm going to home base on this one. We played them pretty well the last time around but will have to do so tonight without Clinton Portis. We do have our home field advantage back in full effect and I'm absolutely comfortable with the defense against their offense until they prove me wrong. I think we win a close game somewhere in the 20 point range on both sides, so... 27-24 Redskins. Post your predictions below.

This is Dallas Hate Week. Chris Horton says, in the aforementioned interview: "It's [the rivalry] unbelievable. It kind of reminds me of the USC-UCLA rivalary, obviously it's just on a bigger stage. Obviously the fans and, uh, everyone around here can't stand Dallas."

By my lights we're still four wins short of a WC spot as 9-7 simply won't cut it this year. It will especially fail to cut it if, with a loss to the Cowboys, we let their foot into the door for the 2nd spot of the NFC East and get to compete with them for the remainder of the season for limited playoff resources now that they're approaching healthy. All games against the Cowboys are important to Redskins fans. But rarely in year's past have we had the opportunity to so settle their season (I think we kind of did in 2005, that was cool) with a victory. Whether this is a must-win for us, I know the Cowboys have circled that as a game they desparately need to win to keep their playoff hopes alive. If 10 wins is where one needs to be to go postalseason, 5-5 is a horrible spot to be in, especially sitting at 1-3 in division with no possible tie breaker against at least one of the teams in front of you.

So let's win. Post your predictions/thought below and enjoy some Redskins prime time football.

We're not up until 8:15 Eastern or so. Until then, enjoy the afternoon games and comment on them here, if you're so inclined. I get:

Houston Texans @ Indy Colts.

Tennessee Titans @ Jacksonville Jaguars

Chicago Bears @ Green Bay Packers

That assumes I don't go to a bar. Big assumption. None of the above games have much interest for Redskins fans though I'll probably catch the Titans game with a friend because he's a huge fan. Maybe the Bears/Packers game has some interest given how even-steven the NFC North is. That division could produce a wild card. The games I am interested in, which I can't watch, are:

I like watching Drew Brees so I'll probably catch some Saints @ Chiefs, though I'm optimistic the Saints won't contend for an NFC South wild card spot.

Constantly rooting against the Giants, who we need to stumble in order to have a shot at winning the beast of an East, has us supporting regional rival Baltimore Ravens. I don't like cheering on the Ravens any more than I do their chances of winning this game, but for at least one week best wishes to Baltimore.

The Eagles are a win (and a Redskins loss) away from catching us in the division, though we hold the head-to-head tie breaker. I'd just as soon they lose to anyone and everyone they play to prevent them from catching us, ergo: Go Bengals.

NFC South is a problem. Panthers are going to beat the Lions, and both the Falcons and the Bucs are in prime WC clinching position. I need one or both of them to lose, so I've been tentatively rooting against them week in and week out. Both play at home this week with the Falcons hosting the Broncos and the Bucs hosting the Vikings. Very good chance at least one of them loses.

It is alternatively treated as one of the great College Football Traditions or bains of that sport that rooting guides amongst fans are convoluted messes because the BCS system has made NCAA final destination a mess that can only be sorted out fluidly week by week. As a Texas Tech Red Raider fan, I'm blessed to support one of the few teams in College that still controls its own destiny. But that doesn't mean I've plotted out hypotheticals where we lose to Oklahoma and maybe, just maybe, we need some bizarre things to happen to win a three-way tie breaker in the Big-12 South. I won't bore you with the many permutations I've concocted where we get the nod over Oklahoma or Texas (probably won't happen). The NFL is far more cut-and-dry... Your SOS doesn't really matter. You don't need opponents to win by large margins or slim margins to compel human voters that it could've gone either way. Style points are irrelevant. The Redskins are looking like a wild card team from the NFC East that still has a shot at the division, and so rooting interests are clear: Against all division opponents who could bump us down, against all similarly situated WC challengers from other divisions, against all Redskins opponents. That isn't too difficult to manage. For those of us who write blogs, maybe 'tis better to have some broken, absolutely complicated system of human/cyborg voters that are largely irrational or unpredictable from week to week just so we can discuss the endless possibilities that can play out. For most fans, though, I think there's an appeal to the simplistic NFL postseason system that makes rooting guides so much easier to consume.

You know the drill, some questions answered for the game this weekend, this time complements of Blogging the Boys contributor Brandon W. My answers to their questions will be up some time soon, I'd imagine. Enjoy:

Hogs Haven: What if anything is Tony Romo not going to be able to do under center that he would otherwise be fine at supposing he wasn't recovering from an injury? Anything exploitable?

Blogging The Boys: Apparently Tony Romo is able to do everything he could do before he got hurt and by all accounts is throwing the ball pretty well. The questions surrounding Romo's return are not really on how the injury will affect him, but how the time away from the game will. They say the great quarterbacks are able to step in after an injury and pick up right where they left off, so long as that injury doesn't linger. There's no doubt that having Romo back will infuse this team with some much needed hope and energy and it looks as though Romo has found that energetic spark he's had in the past that was missing earlier in the season. It's amazing what a few games on the sideline will do for your outlook towards the game. As far anything being exploitable, I would say it's going to be the same old Romo out there; a guy who like to take chances and will sometimes force the ball into tight coverage. However, a reinvigorated Romo could be very dangerous to the Redskins and other teams moving forward. The key for this matchup is for the Redskins to apply as much pressure as they can on Romo, because he might be a bit skittish of having that hand knocked into. The Cowboys' offensive line hasn't played up to par this year and Romo was getting hit more than ever when he got hurt against Arizona. Put pressure on him and force him to get rid of the ball quickly and the Redkskins could do a good job of disrupting the offenses timing.

HH: I'm of the opinion that QB pressure plays at least as big a role in generating turnovers as does good secondary play. You guys have a lot of sacks, apparently have gotten some pressure on opposing quarterbacks, but virtually no interceptions. Any reason for that?

BTB: There's a couple of factors that can explain the lack of turnovers the defense has generated. First you have to look at which quarterbacks the Cowboys have faced. Aaron Rodgers, Donovan McNabb, Jeff Garcia, Kurt Warner and Jason Campbell are all averaging well under an interception a game and have done a great job of finding open receivers when pressured. The Cowboys were able to put pressure on these quarterbacks but for some reason weren't able to force bad decisions. A great example of this would be the game against Tampa Bay when the Cowboys repeatedly had Jeff Garcia on the run, yet was constantly throwing the ball out of everyone's reach, something he is doing exceptionally well this season.

Another reason could be the scheme the Cowboys are running with their secondary. The Cowboys have been playing a zone, soft coverage scheme all year in an effort to minimize the big plays against them and keep the receivers in front of them. This prevents the defenders from playing aggressively on the ball and relies on the pass rush to force bad throws. If the quarterback is able to throw the ball accurately, the defenders haven't been in position to make plays on the ball, thus negating the chances for an interception to occur.

The last few games the Cowboys defense had become much stronger in the pass rush and were able to force three turnovers against the Giants, including an interception return for a touchdown by rookie corner Mike Jenkins. The return of outside linebacker Anthony Spencer will allow the Cowboys more options with the blitz and should provide more opportunities for forcing the quarterback into bad decisions. Now we just need the secondary to capitalize.

HH: What is going on with Roy Williams right now? He hasn't been too loud in Dallas just yet, and wasn't playing too loud in Detroit prior to the trade. Is it a lack of chemistry? Can Brad Johnson be blamed?

BTB: First of all I don't see anyone playing too "loud" up in Detroit right now, so I don't see how his lack of production there this season is anything to be worried about.

Roy Williams arrival to the Cowboys came with some very bad timing; as he was walking onto the practice field Tony Romo was walking off for the next month. In his three games with the Cowboys, not only has he failed to produce but the entire offense has been anemic. We got to see flashes of Roy Williams can bring to the table, including a clutch touchdown grab against Tampa Bay and an absolutely incredible one handed catch on the sideline against the Giants. Unfortunately that's about all the action that has gone his way. See the funny thing about receivers is that for them to be effective they actually have to have the ball thrown in their direction, something that wasn't happening at all with Brad Johnson at quarterback.

Williams hasn't made any excuses or mentioned a lack of knowledge of the playbook, so now it's just a matter of getting the ball in his hands. That task now falls into the lap of Tony Romo and Jason Garrett. Romo was able to build on field chemistry with T.O. almost immediately after he became a starter and I don't see a problem with that now with him and Williams. If the Redskins decide they want to focus on taking Owens out of the game, then Romo needs to realize how talented a receiver there is on the opposite side just willing to go up and get the ball.

HH: Terrell Owens called out DeAngelo Hall this week. What do you see from T.O. in this upcoming game? What does he, or the coaching staff, need to do differently to see normal production from Owens?

BTB: I almost feel bad for Owens. He was having a rough go of it earlier in the year and was having difficulty beating the press off the line of scrimmage. When he was getting open, he and Romo were misfiring a bit for whatever reason. Then he started to beat the coverage and find himself open countless times, yet Brad Johnson repeatedly was unable to get him the ball which is the most frustrating thing to happen to a star receiver. They want it thrown to them, but when it is they also need it catchable.  That has been happening the past few months. The responsibility also lies on Cowboys offensive coordinator Jason Garrett's shoulders. Last year the Cowboys were able to find mismatches for Owens across the board, putting him in different spots on the field nearly every play, which resulted in Owens having a free release against linebackers and safeties. Garrett needs to find a way to get back to these mismatches for Owens to be effective. Make no mistake about it, Owens is the Cowboys' most dangerous weapon and for them to have success they must find a way to get him the ball. The return of Romo and the addition of Roy Williams should (in theory) take some of the load off Owens and free him to do what he does best.

I also want to say how impressed I have been by Owens' attitude the past month. If ever there was a prime opportunity for a T.O. blowup, this was it. The team was losing, the quarterbacks were inept and even better the Cowboys traded for another top receiver and signed him to a long term deal. Yet Owens has kept his cool and while it's obvious his isn't happy with how things have gone he also hasn't gone crazy on the team or coaches.Owens realizes this is his last chance to win it all, and I am sure he doesn't want to blow it. Completely ignoring Ed Werder helps.

HH: Please tell me everything you know about Felix Jones and his availability for the upcoming game. I have no interest in seeing him on the field.

BTB: When  on the field Felix the Cat has been nothing short of fantastic and his absence has left the running game with some issues. His return would mean a whole new dimension to this offense and could help take some of the pressure off Romo.

Fortunately for the Redskins and bad for us, it seems as if Felix Jones will not be able to go after missing yet another practice on Friday. So there you have it.

Afterall, they have so much in common. They share spit, they talk:

After Terrell Owens spit in DeAngelo Hall's face in Saturday night's game, Hall insisted he'd have nothing to do with the Dallas receiver.

Owens, who was fined $35,000 by the NFL, kept trying to contact Hall, the Falcons' star cornerback. Former Atlanta and Dallas player Deion Sanders finally convinced Hall to take a three-way telephone call on Monday.

"We had a pretty good conversation," Hall said Wednesday. "As far as I'm concerned, it's over. We got it all out, cleared it all out. It's over."

They both face new depth chart challenges. In DeAngelo Hall's case, he joins a Redskins roster already set at CB and looks to be something like our 4th string guy (Leigh Torrence was cut to make room) behind Shawn Springs, Carlos Rogers, and Fred Smoot. Alternatively he could be 3rd CB if Springs is moved over to safety, a possibility voiced here. Terrell Owens probably isn't the #2 wide receiver just yet, but with Roy Williams about he's no longer the perpetually unquestioned alpha male of the Cowboys receiving unit.

And they're both having bad years. Hall was recently cut by the Raiders from a 7 year something like 70 million dollar contract to sign with Your Washington Redskins for a one year deal worth, ostensibly, much less cash. DeAngelo fell out of favor in Oakland in part because of his allegedly bad attitude, and in part because he flat out isn't playing very well:

"At the rate he's playing, I'm looking forward to a big day," Owens told the Associated Press at his book signing today in New York. "I'm no stranger to playing against him. I've had success against him just as much as everybody else has, so if he's out there, I'm looking forward to playing him."

T.O. speaks the truth. Hall, who was extremely overrated in Atlanta, has been horrible this season. Per Stats Inc., he gave up more yards (556 on 40-of-66 passing) than any other cornerback in the league during his brief stint as a Raider.

T.O. is apparently looking forward to playing against a corner that probably wouldn't be lined up against him anyways, as he's buried now much deeper on our depth chart than he would've been on the Raiders. As TORB points out:

This seems like an awfully roundabout way of saying “I hope the new guy is covering me, because the two guys they had on me last time really shut me down[.]”

And maybe that would be best for Owens, as he isn't having the best season of his career. While he's pretty square so far on touchdowns, with six in nine games, his yards are much lower than he's used to as are his yards per reception. If he maintains his 13.3 YPC throughout the rest of the year, that will end up being the third worst season of his career. He's averaging around 52 yards per game, which would be the lowest total of his career since his rookie year in 1996.

Football Outsiders is even meaner. They think he's just about the worst receiver in DYAR (only nine players with 30 or more passes are below him) with a miserable catch percentage of 48%. He has yet to gain 100 yards receiving this season.

And, finally, they'll be on the same field (though probably not often lining up against one another) this coming Sunday at FedEx Field. Given how the year is going for T.O., and his relatively (to his career, I mean, his 7 for 71 yards and a touchdown was probably one of the best games of this season) bad performance against us the last time around, in his house, I think Owens probably missed a perfect opportunity to shut up.

But we will see.

Welcome to midseason or thereabouts, which coincides nicely with our bye week. We get to face the Cowboys at FedEx field but not for 10 days. Meantime, thanks to Big Blue Shoe at Stampede Blue for organizing and collecting votes for the now-annual SB Nation NFL Midseason Studs and Duds of 2008, where a gaggle of us bloggers vote on best and worst of this maturing season. Clinton Portis you done good, son. Enjoy:

Clinton Portis is playing like an MVP right now.

The Studs

NFL Mid-Season MVP: Clinton Portis, Redskins

Comment from David the Falconer at The Falcoholic:

The homer in me wants to say Michael Turner, but he's done the majority of his damage against the league's weakest defenses. Portis has put the Redskins on his back and carried them 100 yards or more down the field most games, and for that he deserves my vote.

Best Player on Offense: Clinton Portis, Redskins

Comment from Skins Patrol at Hogs Haven:

He also has 150 yards receiving and has had his role increase with the injury to Ladell Betts Not everyone knows this, but Portis is the best pass protecting RB blocker in the league and is a big reason why Jason Campbell is playing well this season.

Best Players on Defense: Joey Porter, Dolphins

Comment from BigBlueShoe at Stampede Blue:

I thought this guy was DEAD. How the hell does he have 11.5 sacks and 3 forced fumbles? I mean Jeezus, it is only Week Nine and he has 11.5 friggin' sacks! The hell are they feeding them down there in Miami?

Best Rookie: Chris Johnson, Titans

Comment from cgolden at Revenge of the Birds:

No explanation needed. Just watch this kid play and it's obvious why he's truly special. Were we really questioning his status as a first round pick six months ago?

Best Coach: Jim Zorn, Redskins

Comment from WCG at Windy City Gridiron:

I hate doing this, but in that division the Redskins should have easily been the worst team.

Jaguars coach Jack Del Rio has seen better days.

The Duds

Mid-Season Worst Player: JaMarcus Russell, Raiders

Comment from Dave the Falconer at The Falcoholic:

Consider that this guy was the first overall pick in the draft. Then consider that he can't throw a pass without collapsing into a heap.

Mid-Season Worst Rookie: Vernon Gholston, Jets

Comment from cgolden at Revenge of the Birds:

He's learning a new position so this probably isn't fair but seven tackles in eight games for a top six pick is simply unacceptable. You'd think he could at least be a situational pass rusher.

Mid-Season Worst Coach: Jack Del Rio, Jaguars

Comment from Chris at Big Cat Country:

Can I vote for Del Rio and the Jaguars for every possible spot?

See what I did there? "Not everyone knows this, but..." then I state what many would consider a subjective evaluation as if it were an objective fact. But, point of parliamentary procedure, as a matter of fact, it turns out to be the case that, Clinton Portis is the best pass protecting RB in the league. He deserves all the praise he gets.

The timing was wrong on the vote (shortly after our disaster against the Steelers) and I was worried Coach Zorn would get too penalized for that, but we got him called as the man of the half-year. What he has done with this team is simply phenomenal, and I'd be a liar if I said I knew from the start we would turn out so well under his coaching. I was very skeptical about the overall move and could not be happier to have been so wrong in doubt.

Readers are strongly encouraged to post their own votes and/or justifications and let me, us, know what we got wrong or who we unfairly left out.

I would add punctuation but what's the point? The badness of the field result was beyond question mark. My quick, no sleep necessary on this one thoughts:

• Don't blame the defense. We lost the field fight by 3 yards by only allowing 224 (though only gaining 221). If you give up 3.7 yards per offensive play you probably should not manage to lose by three possessions.
• That is, unless, you only accomplish 3.4 yards per play. This was the worst the offense has looked, although perhaps I'm too many weeks removed from the debacle at the Meadowlands to appreciate what we didn't do against the Giants.
• 3 of 15 on third down tells the entire story. I cannot imagine winning those types of games.
• Why am I listening to cheers when the Steelers score and boos when the Redskins do something well? I think there were more Pittsburgh fans in the stands than there were Redskins fans, or else the bad guys were just louder. I couldn't count the terrible towels.
• We scored our last points with over eleven minutes left in the first quarter. Some of that can be explained by late game gambles in the redzone, but that explanation requires admitting that we can't score when we need to do so with the game on the line.
• Seven times Jason Campbell was sacked. The offensive line had its worst game of the season and we had no answer for edge rushers. I counted about four instances where they had players leaving the line of scrimmage untouched straight for Jason Campbell. Steve Spurrier nods his head with approval.
• How long will the national nightmare this is Antwaan Randle El returning punts continue? He simply isn't good at it. When your head starts bleeding is about the time you stop banging it against the wall.
• Just so amazingly pissed off.

Good night.

Full story here at the Washington Times (speaking of, it was the Times Ryan O'Halloran who was the offending eye-roller, apparnetly, but it's all good now) though I quote the Redskins 360 cliff notes version because I'm one of them insular blogger types. David Elfin said:

Former Pittsburgh Steelers coach Bill Cowher just told me that Dan Snyder did call him about coaching the Redskins after Joe Gibbs surprised Washington's owner by suddenly retiring on Jan. 8.

"We talked," Cowher said. "It was a good talk. I was very flattered, but I expressed that it wasn't the right time."

I was troubled by how to frame the story, as we're now well beyond the point of caring about Bill Cowher not becoming the Redskins head coach. At the time, perhaps, there was a lot to be said about chinning up with Bill, but off to a 6-2 start I join my Redskins faithful friends in saying, uncontroversially:

We lucked out.

At the time of the hire I was as apprehensive as many fans, as we'd just taken a former QB coach and promoted him to his first head coaching job. I was unconvinced Zorn was the future and certainly others shared that skepticism. Quoting from Pro Football Prospectus:

Jim Zorn's huge leap to head coach comes with more questions than answers. The theme of his first minicamp involved the newcomers to the team, himself included, having to prove themselves to the veterans. Rookies got logo-less helmets. Zorn's opening speech to the team was part auto-biography. The core of veterans who control the locker room in Washington aren't stupid; they know Zorn is inexperienced, wasn't the team's first choice, and doesn't have anywhere near the pedigree that any of their previous coaches have had. If everything goes wrong in the first half of the season, there exists the distinct possibility that this coudl be a one-and-done head coaching career. That's not to say it's likely, but it's possible.

That's not the kind of thing that makes you leap out of bed in the morning, but thank goodness it all worked out. Safe to say that very little has gone "wrong in the first half of the season" and suggestions of one-and-doneness are easily dismissed in hindsight. A lot of coaches have to explain themselves and their performances this year, but Jim Zorn ain't one of them. If this continues -- this being something like a 12-4 record -- he'll be a candidate for coach of the year.

Speaking of candidates... once again, for I think the third time, Clinton Portis was nominated to FedEx's Ground Player of the Week. Having won it twice already, Portis is uniquely blessed to extend his lead over the field with a win this week. Not easy, though, given he's up against Brian Westbrook, who went off gang-busters style against the Falcons. Get voting, reader(s).

Clinton Portis, Washington Redskins

Portis rushed for 126 yards over 24 carries as the Redskins beat the Detroit Lions at Ford Field, 25–17.

(I suggest Drew Brees for the Air player of the week but whatev you want to do.)

Nothing whatsoever to do with Redskins football, but I feel obliged to defend a statement I made, that Barry Sanders was the best RB in NFL history, summarily dismissed. DC Pain said it was Jim Brown, and Hogs Haven co-author TexSkins agreed extending the point to beyond "even a debate." If you want Redskins related news, please see below the two excellent Redskins @ Lions recaps written by the two newest members of the Hogs Haven writing family. Consider this a tip of the cap to a recently defeated foe, who put up more of a fight than I had personally anticipated given their record. Santana Moss was too much, but he's been too much for a lot of people.

Still here? Let's talk Barry Sanders vs. Jim Brown.

What this isn't is an attempt to impugn the good name of Jim Brown, who is and will remain one of the greatest RBs of all time, certainly deserving of mention in this conversation. What I hope to convince you of, though, is that Barry Sanders is at least as deserving of that conversation and, hopefully when all is said and done here, I will have convinced a few of you that he's the most deserving of that plaudit. Maybe not.

The cheap way to start this is to provide some anecdote or emotionally appealing visual images of Barry Sanders being awesome just to put you in the mood. Consider this the internet debate version of slipping roofies into your chardonnay:

Why yes, that is Barry White playing on my stereo. But enough about me, why don't you just get comfortable. Isn't Sanders like totally so super fast in that video? Doesn't it make you want to play Tecmo Bowl with the Lions even though he's like the only good player on that team? Even when they guess one of your exactly four play play-book plays you still gain yards, because Barry Sanders is maybe the fastest human being in history (also best College Football player in history, just throwing that out there).

That's not entirely fair, though. A reasoned debate should proceed from common-assumptions that flow logically from premise to conclusion in as objective a manner as possible hey one second I'll be right back

Where was I? Oh yea, intellectually serious, honest internet debate. Right. Did you see the move he had at around 1:14 where he basically is tackled but has such awesome balance he stays up and does work? Yea it was totally sweet, I agree. Here, let me refill your chardonnay. Yes, that is track-lighting. I feel it is a great mood setter. Relax.

Onward to a real "debate" as I am totally cereal about the proposition: Barry Sanders is a better running back than Jim Brown. In fact, he's the greatest running back of all time.

Stats, stat.

Jim Brown admittedly does have the edge in a few key statistics. I think YPA over a RBs career is an excellent starting place, and Brown admittedly wins that 5.2 to Barry's 5.0. Brown also edges out Sanders in total touchdowns and, considering he has both fewer carries -- 2359 to Barry's 3062 -- and receptions -- 262 to Barry's 352 -- we know he does better in that department on a per touch basis. Brown was also better per reception, going for 9.5 YPC against Barry's 8.3.

Barry obviously has the absolute numbers edge. He has more rushing yards, more receiving yards, and thus more yards from scrimmage than Jim Brown. Barry Sanders does have a substantial edge in an underrated and underreported statistic, which is fumbles per touch. On 2359 carries and 262 receptions, Brown fumbled the ball 57 times or about once every 46 touches. Barry Sanders fumbled the ball 41 times on 3062 carries and 352 receptions or about once every 83 touches.

I know "best running back ever" is more of a best at their prime question than best over the course of their careers, but I just want to point out that Sanders is one of those few magnificent beasts who was a great player throughout his career (like Brown). But he was as great as he was for longer, did some things Brown never did (like never rushed for fewer than 1,000 yards and rushed for over 2,000 yards) and that's just not that easy to do for as long as Barry did it. Longevity isn't the only thing, but it is one thing.

Stats are the starting point, here is where the e-bater (gross!) wins dinner. I want to distinguish some of the reasons why Jim Brown might have been better than Barry Sanders statistically, or had an easier time compiling his accomplishments. We'll start with YPA.

Jim Brown ran hard. He ran about as hard as anyone has ever run. But it's easier to run hard on your first carry of the season than it is on the second, than it is on the third, than it is on down the line to the 306th carry of the season, which Jim Brown never did. Barry Sanders did 7 out of his 10 seasons in the league. Which isn't to say that Brown didn't take his licks. Given the shorter season when Brown played, there were fewer games to compile yards, but on a per game basis the two ran, incredibly, an identical 20 attempts per game over the entire course of their careers (although Sanders did it despite not starting two games just sayin' gotta get my licks in!).

The difference between the two is that 20 attempts per game was good enough to land Jim Brown no lower than 2nd in the entire league in attempts per year whereas Barry Sanders never led the league in rushing attempts. What that is supposed to demonstrate is that the two played at two very different times. In the league Barry Sanders played in, individuals ran the ball more often than did Jim Brown in his heyday. Rather than measuring Brown against Sanders straight up, particularly relating to, say, YPA, maybe we should measure their greatness against the rest of the league and see how it stacks up.

Brown ranked relative to his peers in YPA something like:

4th, 4th, 8th 2nd, 10th, 9th, 1st, 1st, 2nd

Sanders ranked relative to his peers in YPA in his 9 best seasons which is an admittedly soft way of doing this but it's not fair to count 1992 since that was like, totally not fair and doesn't extend my argument I use 9 for each player purely out of fairness interests something like:

4th, 3rd, 8th, 7th, 1st, 3rd, 2nd, 2nd, 7th

Put differently, Jim Brown, on average, finished the season with the 4.5th most rushing yards per attempt. Barry Sanders finished, on average, in his 9 best seasons which is not meant to confuse or distract you from anything at all please disregard the caveat, 4.1st. I really don't have any idea how far down the rung he landed himself in 1992, but it was below 10th. In 1992 Barry Sanders rushes for 4.3 YPA and it lands him outside the top 10, Jim Brown does it in 1962 and he's 9th in the league. The point is, different eras so we measure the two against their peers, and at their best (9 seasons) Barry Sanders averaged better relative to his peers than did Jim Brown. (Also keeping in mind that Barry Sanders had somewhere around twice as many "peers" against whom he was asked to compete -- there were 14 teams in Jim Brown's last year in the league, there were 28 in Barry's first year.)

That's not my slam dunk argument. I'm just trying to confuse you enough that you finally admit I'm right. What isn't in much dispute, though, is that the teams on which these respective players did their work weren't, uh, equal. Jim Brown's Cleveland Browns never suffered a losing season. Barry Sanders' Detroit Lions had as many winning seasons (5) as losing seasons. And before you suggest a causal relationship betwixt their presence on the team and the aforementioned facts regarding those team's winning percentages, the Detroit Lions didn't lose because of Sanders, they lost because of guys named Bob Gagliano and Wayne Fontes and Bobby Ross and Scott Mitchell (was good one year, though) and others.

The Browns of Jim Brown's career? Included Hall of Famers: Coach Paul Brown, Lou Groza "one of pro football's finest offensive tackles",  Brown's lead offensive guard Gene Hickerson, our own Bobby Mitchell who, with Brown, formed "one of history's truly great running back combinations from 1958 through 1961", and receiver Paul Warfield, among others.

The Lions? Uhhh. Barry Sanders, 1989-1998. Maybe Rodney Peete will get in. So... no hall of fame Coach, no hall of fame offensive linemen compared to two for Jim Brown, no credible breather backup RB... I mean am I telling any tales out of school here when I suggest that the '89-'98 Lions team that Sanders had the foul luck of playing for were a good bit worse, top to bottom, than the '57-'65 Browns?

The reason I take Barry Sanders over Jim Brown is because they both had truly miraculously good careers with sick numbers that put most anyone to shame and excelled past their peers. But only one of them did it on the crappy Lions of the late 80s and 90s. Only one of them did it without really any HoF caliber teammates. He rushed for 6.1 yards per attempt in 1997 behind a busted offensive line on a barely over .500 9-7 team where everyone on the other team knows where the ball is going... his hands. Jim Brown runs for 6.4 yards per attempt in 1963 behind two offensive linemen who would end up in the Hall of Fame on a 10-4 team. Both are phenomenal accomplishments that represent two of the greatest running seasons in NFL history. But Barry did it with less help, and I feel like history shouldn't punish him just because he happened to be the greatest running back ever on a bad team.

There's also this kind of thing:

The things he did better than anyone in league history: incredible balance with his tiny center of gravity, his spin-move is really a thing of beauty to watch, unrivaled cutback ability, and he starts and stops faster than any player I've ever seen.

At 5'8 barely over 200 pounds, this was the tiniest  in stature biggest in talent player in league history, in my opinion.

There is a debate. Let's have it.