The Changing Face of the League (Part 2)
by Brian Shrout on Jun 5, 2010 4:30 PM MDT
in Strictly My Opinion
Email
Print|
|
|
Sponsored Post: This post is presented by Sprint. Bringing you the first wireless 4G network from a national carrier. Only on the Now Network. |
"We learn more by looking for the answer to a question and not finding it than we do from learning the answer itself." -- Lloyd Alexander.
In Part 1 of this series, I took a look at the statement that the NFL is becoming a passing league. What we found was that from 1966 (the year of the first Super Bowl) to 2009, there was a general rise among the majority of teams in the passing yards produced each season. In the 1960s, the majority of the teams produced between 2500 and 2999 passing yards. By the 2000s, that number had risen to between 3500 and 3999 passing yards. While each year had ebbs and flows to where teams fell along the spectrum, 2009 saw a dramatic increase in passing production. In 2009, we saw 23 teams throw for 3000 yards or more. Of those 23, 15 threw for 3500 or more yards. 12 out of those 15 surpassed 4000 passing yards, and 2 of those threw for over 4500 yards. It remains to be seen if 2009 represents a new offensive trend in the NFL, or if was simply an aberrant spike in the productivity. At the end of Part 1, I posed the following question:
Is this slow but steady rise an indication that the teams are shift away from running the ball to a more pass oriented offense, or could it be that there is simply a greater emphasis on offense overall?
I'll share what I found after the fold.
The 1960s
A quick reminder that this study has been arbitrarily restricted to the years 1966-2009 -- The Super Bowl Era. The goal was to see how the offensive production had changed during this time period. It is helpful to remember that although we have lumped the teams all together, the period of 1966-69 was during the time that the AFL and the NFL existed as separate entities.
We can see from this graphic that the overwhelming majority of the teams fell into the 1500-1999 rushing yardage range.
The 1970s
The 1970's were the early years of the AFL-NFL merger which gave us the AFC versus the NFC in the Super Bowl.
The early part of this decade saw the majority of the teams continue to fall into the 1500-1999 yard range. However, in the final 2 years of the 70s, we can see how teams became more effective at running the ball as the majority were now found in the 2000-2499 yard range.
The 1980s
Please remember that 1982 and 1987 were strike years, with 1982 playing a drastically shortened season and 1987 having 1 less game along with 3 games played by replacement players.
The 1990s
The 1990s were perhaps the most stable year for the rushing game, with next to no variation in the production of the teams.
The2000s
The most recent decade was more or less simply a repeat of the 1990s.
1960s - majority fell in the 1500-1999 range1970-1977 - majority fell in the 1500-1999 range1978-79 - majority fell in the 2000-2499 range1980s - majority fell in the 1500-1999 range1990s - majority fell in the 1500-1999 range2000s - majority fell in the 1500-1999 range
1960s -- majority fell in the 2500-2999 range1970-78 -- majority fell in the 2000-2499 range1979 -- majority fell in the 2500-2999 range1980s -- majority fell in the 3000-3499 range1990-94 -- majority fell in the 3000-3499 range1995 -- majority fell in the 3500-3999 range1996-99 -- majority fell in the 3000-3499 range2000 -- majority fell in the 2500-2999 range2001-09 -- majority fell in the 3000-3499
| 1977 |
Defenders are only allowed to make contact with receivers once |
| 1978 |
Defenders may only make contact with receivers within 5 yards of the line of scrimmage |
| 1978 |
Pass blockers are allowed to use extended arms and open hands |
| 1983 |
Incidental contact and simultaneous attempts to catch, tip, block or bat the ball are no longer considered to be Pass Interference |
| 1985 |
Pass Interference is no longer applicable to clearly balls which clearly cannot be caught |
| 1987 |
Allows the QB to spike the ball to stop the clock |
| 1987 |
Pass Interference in the end zone results in the ball being placed at the 1 yard line |
| 1995 |
An eligible receiver forced out of bounds by a defender may return to the field and be the 1st offensive player to touch a forward pass |
| 1995 |
Radio receivers are allowed in the QB's helmet |
| 2000 |
When a receiver has possession and control of a forward pass and falls to the ground, the ball is allowed to touch the ground if the receiver maintains clear control |
| 2001 |
Roughing the passer penalties are to be strictly enforced |
| 2004 |
Illegal Contact, Pass Interference and Defensive Holding penalties are to be strictly enforced |
| 2007 |
Catch Rule is changed to "control of the ball and 2 feet down inbounds" (A "football" move is no longer required to rule a pass as complete) |
Prior to about 1966 the ration of run to pass was around run-60% and pass-40%. At this time, you gained more net yards per play, on average, by running, due to the diminishing effect on total passing yards that comes with INTs. But, continual changes in the passing game did bring up overall YPP over the intervening decades.
One of them, of course, was the work of Sid Gillman that led to the innovations of Bill Walsh. Unlike his friend on contemporary Don Coryell, Walsh refused to accept the problems created by interceptions, and his risk-phobic additions to the passing game still influence pro ball today. Many factors played in, perhaps none more heavily than the rules changing the meaning of offensive holding and those governing the amount of contact permitted by the defender on potential receivers. Over a thirty year period, the tendency moved from run-0dominant to pass dominant. I don’t the the exact numbers in my head, but a detailed discussion of this issue is found in the book The Blind Side.
There is an excellent article that looks at the run-to-pass ratio at advancedfnlstats.com: Run-Pass Balance--A Historical Analysis, by Brian Burke. Burke looks at the trends from 1940 to 2009. He looks at the yards per play from rushes compared to passes and the rushing plays vs the passing plays per game.
(graphs used by written permission from Brian Burke)
Burkes' research clearly shows that while the yards per rush had a minimal increase over the years, yards per pass has jumped dramatically -- particularly beginning in 1978. Burke also demonstrates -- as Emmett mentioned above -- the rushing plays per game game and the passing plays per game have reversed prevalence. Thus we seem to have a situation in which:
| 1 |
The NFL has been stressing offensive production -- as indicated by both passing and rushing yards per play steadily increasing. |
| 2 |
The NFL has been stressing passing production -- as evidenced by the dramatic increase in passing yards per play since 1978. |
| 3 |
The increase in passing production has not come at the expense of rushing production -- rushing production has risen slightly and remained relatively steady, despite the increases in passing production. |
| 4 |
The increase in passing production appears to be the result of the increase in the number of passing plays per game, along with rules changes that favor the passing offense. |
| 5 |
Rushing production appears to be becoming more efficient, as evidenced by the fact that despite a decline of nearly 10 rushing plays per game since 1979, rushing production has remained relatively stable. |
With this emphasis on offense, and on passing in particular, the next question quickly becomes:
44 comments
|
14 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Man I love this "mythbusters" approach to football you have.
These are such great posts. Passes are sure exciting to watch, but I don’t think anyone (except raiders or packers fans) would disagree that watching TD run was electrifying! I love the balance between run and pass.
Thanks for putting all this together!
-Harvey J. Neptune
"Practice doesn't make perfect. PERFECT practice makes perfect." - Vince Lombardi
Why read the newspaper...
When I can start my Sunday morning with Bacon eggs toast coffee and yet another amazing read and post by the one the only BShrooooouut. Great post, It is amazing how the game changes and continues to evolve. Thanks for putting up all the different rule changes and dates when they did them. I love your stuff mate. I still think defense wins championships. Just my opinion. Thanks again
by Downunder Thunder on Jun 5, 2010 5:39 PM MDT reply actions
Thanks DT
I’m inclined (at this point in time) to agree with you on the defense wins championship question, but I’m also willing to admit that I may be wrong. We’ll see after the data gets compiled for the 3rd part of this series.
We live in an age when instant gratification isn't fast enough
Defense still wins
This is the league rank in the regular season for the last 10 super bowl winners counting backwards in points allowed: 20, 1, 17, 23, 4, 2, 1, 1, 6, 1, 1
4 of the last 10 super bowl winners have allowed the fewest points in the regular season, and 7 of the last 10 have placed will inside the top 10 for fewest points allowed, only 1 has placed in the bottom 10.
1, 20, 14, 2, 9, 4, 12, 18, 6, 14
Only 1 time in the last 10 super bowls did the most scoring team in the regular season win the Lombardi. 5 times in the last 10 years the super bowl winner has not had a top 10 scoring offense.
In fact over the last 10 super bowls only 3 times have the winning team had a higher ranked scoring offense than its defense.
This if of course not conclusive, but given the very small sample size it certainly does seem to indicate that a great defense is better than a great offense when it comes time for the Super bowl. On the other hand recent years have seemed to suggest that more teams with good offenses will tend to make the playoffs than teams with good defenses, but once you are in the playoffs, the defense takes over and gets you the trophy.
Looking forward to that one
Fans want to see points scored and lots of them, they also want to see a faster game. The rule changes seem to encourage this. I always think that if you have the better defense and can stop the other team from scoring then you have a greater chance to win. There will always be points leaked. If our defense is better than their offense then we win. I know this sounds simple but hey I’m a simple kind of guy.
by Downunder Thunder on Jun 5, 2010 5:53 PM MDT reply actions
The reasoning makes sense to me
We live in an age when instant gratification isn't fast enough
by Brian Shrout on Jun 6, 2010 12:40 AM MDT up reply actions
Great read
I’m looking forward to the next one, these are great!
"Mr. President, call in the National Guard! Send as many men as you can spare! Because we are killing the Patriots! They need emergency help!" - Shannon Sharpe
Thanks
We live in an age when instant gratification isn't fast enough
by Brian Shrout on Jun 6, 2010 12:40 AM MDT up reply actions
Wonderful!!! Point well proven!!!
Stuff like this is why I love this site. Taken in their entirety, the numbers don’t lie.
However, we all know that football is a contextual game and not every yard equals every other yard. I’m wondering how we could pull the ever important 1st down/3rd down/redzone numbers into this discussion.
Hmmmm . . . interesting proposition
May have to give it some thought. Right now, the only way I can think of how to approach it would be to go to the play-by-play descriptions from each game (though there may be a website that’s already compiled that data).
We live in an age when instant gratification isn't fast enough
by Brian Shrout on Jun 6, 2010 12:42 AM MDT up reply actions
I would like to talk
about what Emmett said in part one of this series regarding Bill Walsh.
Walsh wasn’t the first person to use short passes in place of the running game. The Giants were doing that with Fran Tarkenton in the late-60’s. Fran was doing that in Minnesota as well. As Bud Grant said one time:
Former Minnesota Vikings coach Bud Grant pointed out that Walsh “learned most of what he knew from Paul Brown. And he never gave Paul Brown any credit. Paul Brown was the greatest innovator in the coaching field that ever came along. But Walsh invented the game.” (In case you didn’t get it, that last sentence was bitter sarcasm.)
“You talk about the West Coast Offense,” Grant said, “When we had Tarkenton here, that’s exactly what we were doing — short passing, dumping the ball to Foreman in the flat. Jerry Burns was doing that before Bill Walsh ever got in the business of doing it. Bill Walsh knew the value of having a PR department to put out his stuff. So your question is, does that bother me? No, it doesn’t. It would bother me if it represented dollars or something. But it doesn’t — it represents ego. I could live with more dollars, but I can’t live with more ego.”
Walsh only started using the short pass offense by accident. When he was an assistant with the Bengals in 1969, he had a rookie QB phenom by the name of Greg Cook who could throw downfield. When he ended up tearing his rotator cuff(at the time, there were no fixes for that) and couldn’t play again, Walsh had to change what he was doing in 1970 because the new QB was Virgil Carter, who didn’t have a big arm. So, he started going to a short pass offense, and he kept using it with a guy named Ken Anderson until he left the Bengals in 1976 because Paul Brown didn’t promote him to head coach.
With the 49ers, he didn’t invent anything new, like the media tried to make people believe. He just kept doing what he was doing in Cincinnati, and the rule changes you talked about above made it a lot easier for that type of offense to thrive. Speaking of his offense, the “West Coast” offense is a bad name. It should be called the “Midwest” offense, because that is where it began.
Corrections
I’m familiar with Bud Grant’s comments, but historically, they are only partly true. The story about Virgil Carter was covered in detail here and here and here.
To claim that Walsh didn’t invent anything new is both partly true and totally false. Let me explain – there is little in football that is ‘new’, and different people have used short passes for decades. However – simply using the short pass isn’t what made the WCO unique. What Walsh did was two-fold, and it was very different from what Bud Grant is talking about. Short passes have been around for a long time, and no one would argue that. However – there were a variety of differences between what Grant talked about and what Walsh did.
Let’s start at the beginning. The beginning predated Grant’s work – it was more appropriately traced back to Sid Gillman. Gillman was essentially the father of the modern passing game. He developed a dual system of stretching the field vertically and horizontally with the passing game in the late 1050’s. Between 1960 and 1969, Gillman developed this system further while coaching both the Los Angeles Rams and the San Diego Chargers. Among his many pupils were Al Davis, who still emphasizes the vertical game, Don Coryell, who also used the vertical game (and also in San Diego) but in somewhat different ways, and Bill Walsh. Walsh worked with Dan Fouts before Coryell did and has often given credit for his throwing skills to the training that he received under Walsh.
You can begin to see from this why the system was referred to as the West Coast Offense – it descended from Gillman, who ran LA and San Diego, and would ultimately be established in Walsh’s final form first when Walsh was at Stanford and then in San Francisco. While it’s true that Walsh developed it’s early form for Virgil Carter, as I’ve pointed out repeatedly, there are several differences between Grant’s version, which did use the short pass extensively but did not establish the use of the timing route that was the staple of Walsh’s system. This has lead to Bill Polian, currently the GM of the Indy Colts, to comment that at this point, every team owes a debt to Walsh, since every team now used the timing routes in some degree. It’s inaccurate to claim that Walsh only used the system by accident – actually, Gillman was using a similar approach back in the 1950’s and 60’s, and Walsh had adapted those approaches and added his own when the situation with Carter emerged. Carter was the perfect foil for Walsh to experiment with the system’s limits, but the final form didn’t emerge until Walsh was at San Francisco in the late 1970’s.
I think that if you read through the Tales of Mythology, West Coast Offense, you’ll see that the system developed by Walsh was far more extensive than the approach used by Grant and Tarkenton. This isn’t meant to take anything away from Grant’s work, nor that of a half dozen other coaches who made effective use of the short pass. However – it is not a question of whether or not other people used the short pass – it’s a question of how it was used and what attributes the offense included. Walsh’s work is hardly a media invention – head coaches and GM’s around the league, including Mike Shanahan, have credited Walsh with changing the way that they use the short pass, the timing route and the approach of stretching the field horizontally.
I greatly appreciate you bringing up this subject. Thanks for stepping in – it’s always good to establish the devil in the details that does establish Walsh as the founder, shows why the system is so named and why it is still an influence on the modern game.
Gnothi Seauton
by Doc Bear on Jun 5, 2010 9:18 PM MDT up reply actions 8 recs
Never get tired of hearing that story, doc
Thanks for every time you’ve shared it.
I like Josh. But I need Ws.
by broncosmontana on Jun 5, 2010 9:47 PM MDT up reply actions
That's what happens when we try to put labels on something...
What coaches come up with, i.e. Bill walsh and others, has already been try and dyed…People like Walsh took it and refined it to the players he had and made something special out of it…That’s how he was successful with the 49ers…If he would have stayed on for a few more years then other teams who were beginning to grasp his type of system would have neutralized it in some capacity. System only work as long as the coach is willing to run it. Great coaches change with the flow of the game and are highly successful when they adapt to the other teams flaws. In other words, you can’t keep doing the same things over and over, eventually other coaches will figure out counter moves to the system you are playing ang make it nul-in-void…
There is a current movement to counter the effectiveness of the modern WCO types
As I noted in one of the articles, it’s fair to say that no one is really running a true “WCO” offense at this point – all of them have variations between what is being done and what Bill Walsh did, and that’s as it should be – the game in dynamic, not static, and changes are part of the pleasure of watching it grow and develop. However – there were quite a few articles about one year ago discussion how more and more teams are going to variations on the short passing offense with some of the WCO attributes. In response, teams have moved to a higher number of what are commonly called ‘coverage’ safeties – safeties like Renaldo Hill and Darcel McBath who have the ability to function as additional cornerbacks, or who are just unusually talented in coverage as safeties (Hill, you’ll remember, began his NFL career as a cornerback, so his skill there is unsurprising). By having an additional DB on the field who can take on coverage duties closer to the LOS there is a greater potential to maintain coverage, delay the QB’s throw for a moment and increase the ability of the front 7 to create a sack, hit or hurry.
The only constant in the game is change, with each new innovation driving innovative responses to eliminate the advantage held by the team that creates a new approach. It’s one of the many beauties of the game.
Gnothi Seauton
Two of the best safeties in years, Eric Berry and Earl Thomas
In this years draft both have the ability to be cover corners, or rovers who watch the quarterback then use their speed and recognition to make a play. This type of player can wreck havoc on teams and quarterbacks who relay too heavily on WCO. This is because it’s hard to read what they will be doing, whether they are in man, zone or blitzing, plus the fact that they are able to add another dimension to stop a spread style offense. Man I love how the FS position is changing.
I am a bear of very little brains and big words bother me.
Thanks for that information, Doc
I was unaware of a great deal of it.
We live in an age when instant gratification isn't fast enough
by Brian Shrout on Jun 6, 2010 12:45 AM MDT up reply actions
Thanks, Emmett. This is awesome stuff! Rec'd!
Thanks for your time putting it all together.
It would be interesting to see how QBs like Tarkenton, Tittle and Unitas would fare in today’s passing climate. I guess that that is only 1 era to take into account. Many more.
Good work Emmet. Thats helpful knowledge for me!
What about this then peeps?
The rushing game has not really seen any dramatic improvements in years? Am I to believe that we are just ‘at the end’ of the abilities of the rushing game to improve and show greater effectiveness.
Until Gilman, Coryell and Walsh etc helped install ‘new ideas’ for the passing game it was also being sometimes overtaken by the rushing game in effective play.
Sure the rule changes have helped the passing game’s effectiveness but it is also due to the complex nature of the systems that have been developed and layered in time after time.
How much change has the rushing game endured in recent years?
Is it time for McD to use Tebow to unleash a type of balanced attack with a rushing game that hasn’t been seen in the NFL before? Spread? Power? Zone blocking? Who cares what it ends up being called, but make sure its innovative. Make defences do things differently in the run game to what they are used to. Sure it won’t work forever, but by then you can be installing something new.
It seems like these guys really had to commit to something like the West Coast Offence for it to be successful. Im sure there were people who didnt understand how it could work. But it did.
What about the Triple option even? Why not see if there is a variation that works at the NFL level>
"The advantage law is the best law in rugby, because it lets you ignore all the others for the good of the game." - Derek Robinson
"You've got to get your first tackle in early, even if it's late." - Ray Gravell
This is so epic
it belongs in MHR University, or at least the university library. Great macro view of the game’s most revealing evolution, the shift of emphasis to passing. Wonder why every generation seems to break old passing records? This is the key reason why. Great work, BS!!
I like Josh. But I need Ws.
And it really hits home
when you look at that list of rule changes through the years benefitting QBs.
Peyton, you’re good, son. But best ever? That’s officially and statistically up for serious debate.
I like Josh. But I need Ws.
by broncosmontana on Jun 5, 2010 8:04 PM MDT up reply actions
Just think
how many third downs we could have converted if Elway had benefitted from the roughing the passer enforcement shift alone.
I like Josh. But I need Ws.
by broncosmontana on Jun 5, 2010 8:05 PM MDT up reply actions
pretty soon the NFL will rule a play a completion
if the receiver and the ball happen to be within five feet of each other. “Well, we know he clearly would have caught it if he’d had a clean release and the sun wasn’t shining in his eyes.”
Sorry, did I spill sarcasm on anyone?
I like Josh. But I need Ws.
by broncosmontana on Jun 5, 2010 8:11 PM MDT up reply actions
LOL
I love your definition of a completed pass.
And thanks for the kind words.
We live in an age when instant gratification isn't fast enough
by Brian Shrout on Jun 6, 2010 12:46 AM MDT up reply actions
Simply awesome!
Character may be manifested in the great moments but it is made in the small ones -- Philip Brooks
Thanks Kap'n
We live in an age when instant gratification isn't fast enough
by Brian Shrout on Jun 6, 2010 12:47 AM MDT up reply actions
So if I have this right...
offenses in general have either stayed at the same production or gotten better? Does that mean defenses are getting worse? Could the Orange Crush of 77 take Peyton’s Colts to the cleaners?
Comparing Michael Lombardi to Bill Williamson is like comparing an In-N-Out Cheeseburger to a sh## sandwich.
Williamson would probably eat both – no questions asked.
Actually the defense vs offense comparison is forth coming
So far what we’ve looked at is passing production vs rushing production.
Though, the case could be made that offensive production overall has increased over the years. That would seem to be the intent of many of the rule changes, particularly since 1978 — to increase the likelihood that games will showcase more offense.
We live in an age when instant gratification isn't fast enough
by Brian Shrout on Jun 5, 2010 10:10 PM MDT up reply actions
kind of puts the Ravens SB D in a pretty nice light, doesn't it?
That was a special team. As much as I hated them.
I like Josh. But I need Ws.
by broncosmontana on Jun 6, 2010 11:33 AM MDT up reply actions
Is any of this a product of the increase in games played or have you accounted for that?
As i wonder if teams/officials have become more efficient at time management and therefore able to squeeze more plays into the game than they used to.
Thanks for the research work Brian, it was an interesting read, and the rule changes have definitely made a big difference to the passing game.
I wonder if in the future the NFL will somehow modify the rules so that they can get more production/excitement out of the running game, i have no idea how they would but it’s a thought.
And i guess if we are honest with ourselves, we all love the deep touchdown and the big running plays, they are a big part of what attracts us to this game, so it makes sense for the league to facilitate them being more prevalent.
I'm certain that having 2 additional games has had an effect
add in the rule changes, and the shift from an emphasis on running to passing, and you noted — increases in efficiency in game clock management and you can most likely account for the majority of the increase.
You may also be well onto to something with your point about the number of plays per game. For example in 2009, the Broncos averaged 64.5 offensive plays per game, while in 1966, they averaged 58.2 plays per game. With the shift in emphasis to the passing game, that could help explain the shift from 3.9 yards per play in 1966 to 5.3 yards per play in 2009.
Great contribution, thanks.
We live in an age when instant gratification isn't fast enough
Would an average of all games and yardage give a clearer indication/ Thanks fro your work Brian as always!
Those that cant coach, compete!
Failing to plan is planning to fail.
All I want is 53 Rod Smiths. Is that asking too much????
"Peyton Hillis didn’t rip the sleeves off his jersey, they flew off out of fear."
Calijoefornia.
I'm not a mathematitian,
but i guess you could work out what the yard difference was just from those numbers? And see if that accounts for the increase or at least how much of it it accounts for.
Like = (no. of offensive pass plays per game) x (avg. pass per play) x (no. of games) =?
Then i guess do the same for running plays?
Not sure if that would help at all, but in my very non mathematical mind that makes some sense.. lol
Thanks Brian for your post.
Good info – I will send it to my files.
yqw
hopefully it’s not a circular file. ;-p jk
We live in an age when instant gratification isn't fast enough
by Brian Shrout on Jun 7, 2010 12:59 PM MDT up reply actions
Great post Brian, thanks, rec'd
"I cannot give you a formula for success, but I can give you the formula for failure: Try to please everybody."
thanks, and yqw
We live in an age when instant gratification isn't fast enough
by Brian Shrout on Jun 7, 2010 12:59 PM MDT up reply actions
Good stuff mate!
Rec’d! Good next logical step in the analysis there. Thanks for putting that up!
"The advantage law is the best law in rugby, because it lets you ignore all the others for the good of the game." - Derek Robinson
"You've got to get your first tackle in early, even if it's late." - Ray Gravell
Excellent Post BShrout - Thanks.
It all starts in the trenches - HT 11/11/08
Leave the hateful vitriol to the uninformed - HT 3/16/09
Graphs
Nice analysis, but some of your charts are off when adding up the numbers: you have
27 teams in 73
32 teams in 77
33 teams in 93
29 teams in 97
I know this doesn’t change the foundations of your discussion, but it does weaken your position.
Thanks for that catch.
Must have mis-entered some of the data on the spreadsheet.
We live in an age when instant gratification isn't fast enough
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Getting Social With MHR
Web Stuff
In Association With
Shutdown Corner - NFL - Yahoo! Sports
- Detroit Lions DT Nick Fairley arrested again; now has more NFL arrests than NFL sacks
- Former high-school star Brian Banks does serious time on trumped-up charge, now hopes for an NFL shot
- Former ‘idiot kicker’ Mike Vanderjagt in trouble after accosting junior-high heckler
- Adrian Peterson blows teammates away in footraces; appears to be on the mend
- UPDATE: Charlie Sheen didn’t buy Lawrence Taylor’s Super Bowl ring
