Some Clarification is in Order: The Defense and NFL Trends

by Topher Doll on Jul 11, 2011 2:00 PM MDT in Some Clarification is in Order

DENVER - OCTOBER 17: You remember interceptions right? Well they aren't as common as they used to be. (Photo by Justin Edmonds/Getty Images)

We're on the home stretch here, with only the defense and special teams remaining as we look at some of the major trends in the NFL over past few decades. This week we will be looking at the defense, how it has changed, adjusted, and fluctuated in the recent years. Next time we will be covering the special teams and it's changes and trends as well. But today, oh today, we examine the defense of the NFL.

We will be looking at a number of topics:

- Yards and points per game and their connection to number of offensive plays

- Turnovers and sacks

- Trending of the 3-4 and 4-3

- Relation to the above changes with current quarterback play

So with those topics in mind, lets get to work. We will be looking at each area in the same mind frame as the past, from 1978 to 2010.

Yards and Points Per Game and Number of Plays:

Last week we saw that both yards per game and points per game were steadily increasing. But there is more to the story than just that, there is actually a trend that shows that it takes offenses less plays to score than it used to. It is getting easier and easier for offenses to succeed.

The Table:

Year	Off. Plays/Team	Off. Plays/Game
1978	1033	65
1979	1044	65
1980	1040	65
1981	1061	66
1982	585	65
1983	1053	66
1984	1052	66
1985	1049	66
1986	1042	65
1987	992	62
1988	1027	64
1989	1018	64
1990	965	60
1991	972	61
1992	959	60
1993	1005	63
1994	1019	64
1995	1032	65
1996	1022	64
1997	1021	64
1998	1009	63
1999	1018	64
2000	1007	63
2001	1001	63
2002	1018	64
2003	1003	63
2004	999	62
2005	1001	63
2006	1000	63
2007	1004	63
2008	990	62
2009	1007	63
2010	1010	63

The Graph:

Off

So with the increase in points and yards per game, but a decrease in plays, there is an obvious trend there. The defenses of the NFL are becoming less and less successful at stopping teams, both from scoring and from moving the ball.

Turnovers and sacks:

We have seen that defenses have struggled to stop offenses in recent years, now we get to see why. We will look at turnovers, both fumbles and interceptions, and sacks per game, to try and get a handle on it to see if we can spot a trend. Hint: You can.

The Table:

Year	Avg Sack/Game	Avg Sack/Season	Avg TO/Game	Avg TO/Season
1978	2.3	36.5	2.5	40
1979	2.4	37.8	2.4	38
1980	2.3	36.8	2.3	37
1981	2.3	36.5	2.5	40
1982	2.7	24	2.4	22
1983	2.7	43.4	2.5	40
1984	2.9	46.9	2.3	37
1985	2.9	46.6	2.3	37
1986	2.7	42.8	2.3	37
1987	2.5	39.5	2.4	38
1988	2.3	37	2.2	35
1989	2.5	39.5	2.2	35
1990	2.4	38.1	2	32
1991	2.2	35.4	2	32
1992	2.5	40.7	2	32
1993	2.4	37.7	1.9	30
1994	2.1	33.5	1.9	30
1995	2.2	35.9	1.9	30
1996	2.3	36.9	1.9	30
1997	2.6	41.7	1.8	29
1998	2.5	40.2	1.8	29
1999	2.5	40.3	1.9	30
2000	2.5	39.7	1.9	30
2001	2.4	38.6	1.9	30
2002	2.3	36.7	1.8	29
2003	2.1	34.1	1.8	29
2004	2.3	37.4	1.8	29
2005	2.3	36.9	1.8	29
2006	2.3	36.4	1.8	29
2007	2.2	34.4	1.8	29
2008	2.0	32.4	1.5	24
2009	2.2	34.4	1.7	27
2010	2.2	35.2	1.7	27

The Graph:

Avg_to_and_sack_per_game_medium

The graph is pretty obvious, both turnovers and sacks have been on the downhill for some time. With defenses garnering fewer game changing events, it is becoming clearer why defenses are struggling.

Trending of the 3-4 and 4-3

Here is something else that is playing into part of this, and it's something a little harder to track. Now there is not a archive of 3-4 and 4-3 defenses on the internet, at least not that I've found, so I had to nit pick across a lot of articles to get as many as I did, but I still shows a good picture of how the two defenses are fluctuating.

The Table:

Year	3-4 Teams	4-3 Teams
1978
1979
1980	20	8
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989	19	9
1990	16	12
1991	14	14
1992	15	13
1993	10	18
1994	9	19
1995	7	23
1996	3	27
1997
1998	2	28
1999	4	26
2000	6	24
2001	11	19
2002	10	20
2003	10	22
2004	8	24
2005	9	23
2006	14	18
2007	17	15
2008	18	14
2009	13	16
2010	15	17

The Graph:

3-4_and_4-3_medium

We can see both defenses have had their day in the sun, but clearly there seems to be a balance that is being reached. With the 4-3 reaching it's glory day in the mid 1990's and the 3-4 being more popular in the 1980's, the moved around a bit, but now seem to be normalizing a bit.

Now this is an interesting thing, the changes in defenses. The 1990's were the most successful point in history for mobile quarterbacks, without a doubt, and it started in the late 1980's. Now this is the same time we saw the rise in 4-3 defenses. Now it has been discussed that the 4-3 defense is superior to the 3-4 against mobile quarterbacks for a number of reasons, including a pass rush that comes more up the middle and presents better coverage on the sides to stop a rolling out quarterback, as well as stopping the quarterback from stepping up and out of the pocket by making him face two defensive tackles. But the moment Peyton Manning entered the league, the NFL did an abrupt face, and the addition of guys like Manning, Brees and other pocket passers saw the rise of the 3-4 again, very rapidly. Manning's distaste for the 3-4 is well known, and for a guy who puts in as much work as he does, and to still have issues with a defense is a sign. But in the past two to three years we've seen something of a balance reached, with some teams moving back to mobile quarterbacks, there are still a large number of teams using traditional quarterback play, this use of both styles is causing that balance in the 3-4 and the 4-3 to be reached.Now this is obviously a simplified down version, but to go much more indepth would require more space than I have.

Summary:

To conclude today's study, I just want to point out a strange and disturbing trend, the defenses of the NFL are always playing catchup to combat the current style of quarterback play that is popular at the time. This constant adapting seems to be a very bad thing. Players are always changing positions to fit the defense that his new team, or old team with a new DC, may run. Defenses aren't able to establish stability, and because of that, aren't able to maximize the abilities of their players. The defenses of the NFL either need to begin to set the pace of how quarterbacks are going to play, or they will keep getting rolled over.

Teams are scoring more points, being more accurate, runners are more successful, and offenses are doing all this in fewer plays and with fewer turnovers. That's big, really big.

Next week on Some Clarification is in Order: Special Teams and NFL Trends

Tweet Comment 36 comments | 3 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

I get the sense the 4-3 is going to be more prevalent now.

I wonder what causes the pendulum to swing like that. I wonder if there is any correlation to this with what is going on at the college level in the years preceding the big shifts.

The Orton/Tebow Debate Has Been Settled

by Tim Lynch on Jul 11, 2011 2:06 PM MDT reply actions

Yes, yes

And yes.

by Brian Conrad on Jul 11, 2011 2:12 PM MDT up reply actions

I agree about the defense moving like a pendulum

I did look at a college level, but since there are so many teams, and college changes more often than the NFL and has a much broader variety of styles. There may be a connection, but I couldn’t find one.

I am a bear of very little brains and big words bother me.

by Topher Doll on Jul 11, 2011 3:40 PM MDT up reply actions

Two reasons I see

1. Not a lot of colleges play a pro offense, so the defense in college is geared to stopping the run and gun or option or whatever offense making them hard to evaluate for a 3-4 defense.

2. Finding good fits for 4-3 are probably easier than finding good fits for a 3-4 and many teams that tried to play a 3-4 simply couldn’t get that great nose tackle or power rush guy to make it work well (or fewer players wanted to play the self-sacrificing position of NT so they didn’t play well there hoping to play a rush lineman instead, uh, like Haynesworth).

Orton, Tebow, Quinn, may the best man win!

by OrangeandBluesBros on Jul 11, 2011 4:14 PM MDT up reply actions

I'll try to find the references for this

But as I recall, the 3-4 came into vogue in an attempt to slow down the West Coat Offense with it’s stress on the short to intermediate pass routes using multiple receivers.

I think another factor has been the large number of rules changes that favor the passing game and the QBs. Defenses are constantly having to play catch-up to the offensive schemes.

We live in an age when instant gratification isn't fast enough

by Brian Shrout on Jul 11, 2011 4:25 PM MDT up reply actions

I think the normalizing

has to do with the lines blurring between the two defenses and the emergence of nickle and other subpackages as the predominant formation over the course of 60 defensive plays per game.

Change your opinions, keep to your principles; change your leaves, keep intact your roots.

by Jeremy Bolander on Jul 11, 2011 8:58 PM MDT up reply actions

That Squid INT was the best defensive play of the season. He broke off his man to step into another WR’s passing lane.

That was the kind of play great teams make often, but Denver’s made very few of the last few years. A real play-makers play.

Then for some bizarre reason, Wink decided to bench Squid and play Nate Jones as much as possible.

The Lockout bores me.

by McGeorge on Jul 11, 2011 2:24 PM MDT reply actions

Confusing isn't it?

I’m looking forward to more Squid this year and Nate Jones working a cell phone booth.

"Bombs dropping down overhead. Underground. It's instilled to want to live." -EV

by sadaraine on Jul 11, 2011 2:31 PM MDT up reply actions

I honestly don't think the country club mentality has ever left Dove Valley.

We all thought Shanny’s departure would have secured that – we were all wrong. Nate Jones is a veteran and in a country club, the vet’s get their due – while the rookie sits his ass on the bench.

The Orton/Tebow Debate Has Been Settled

by Tim Lynch on Jul 11, 2011 2:50 PM MDT up reply actions

Interesting observation, Tim

I wonder if there’s any way to explore that.

We live in an age when instant gratification isn't fast enough

by Brian Shrout on Jul 11, 2011 4:27 PM MDT up reply actions

The reps guys like Hoch, Nate Jones, LeKevin Smith, LeMont Jordan, Stan Daniels and McBean got made zero sense to me. Not once did any of those players play well or even so-so, but McD kept putting them on the field over Squid, either Olsens, Hillis, Ayers and more.

Perhaps your right. Shanny did this a lot as well and it never paid off. Except Shanny had a better eye for mediocre talent so he got enough out of his so-so vets to squeeze out a few .500 seasons. McD had a boner for crappy Patriots and other crappy AFC East vets so he filled our roster with these JaBronies and we ended up debacling the 2010 season.

McD created plenty of competition on our roster. Unfortunately for him, he just created a competition to see which guy was the least talented, least productive starter and he put together a team with plenty of hacks that fit the bill. Then he hired hack coaches to keep tabs on his hack players. Nice one Josh. Great execution of your master plan.

The Lockout bores me.

by McGeorge on Jul 11, 2011 8:55 PM MDT up reply actions

it could be the practice phenomenon

I would bet a big part of making a good showing in practice comes from just being familiar with the ins and outs of the days, where to line up, when to move from one group to another, etc. A rook or even a young player might start to get conceptually lost in the pure practice stuff, and lose his equilibrium for the stuff that reflects most on how he can expect to perform in a game, like remembering what the name of a play was, etc.

Change your opinions, keep to your principles; change your leaves, keep intact your roots.

by Jeremy Bolander on Jul 11, 2011 9:01 PM MDT up reply actions

Your theory makes sense as to why McBean or Nate Jones would see the field in weeks 1 thru 3, but at some point McD should have said to himself… These guys really suck on Sunday. Poor Hoch gets pushed 5 yards into the backfield on every running play… Maybe we should try another player…

But Josh was too damn stubborn to change course on vets that didn’t pan out. He took forever to pull Daniels and Hoch out of the lineup. He never pulled Jones.

He’d trade Phonz or Hillis in a heart beat, but he was going to ride Nate Jones and mcBean to his very early Bronco grave.

The Lockout bores me.

by McGeorge on Jul 11, 2011 9:10 PM MDT up reply actions

Shanny was the same...

except he also sucked at drafting, so he had no young players to replace the crappy starters. :P Go Nate Webster!

The Orton/Tebow Debate Has Been Settled

by Tim Lynch on Jul 11, 2011 9:33 PM MDT up reply actions

That's only 50% true

Shanny did have a strong eye for offensive talent with successful picks like BM, Cutler, Kuper, Clady, Royal (under Shanny’s coaching anyway), Hillis and Ryan Harris from 2006-2008. That’s a impressive list of high end starters from his final three drafts.

But his vision for defensive talent was like 20/500. Pretty much legally blind. Only Elvis turned out to be any good from his last several years of defensive picks. Lots of high picks wasted. Jarvis Moss being the worst of them all considering Shanny traded up a fortune to draft that clown. Then doubled down on Crowder in round 2… YES! There was the 2005 draft that netted us D Will, Foxworth and Paymuh, none of which aid our team today.

That said, Shanny was still better on draft day than McDaniels. Not that this means much because my dead childhood cat Loco would have done better than McD at the 2009 draft. With all those picks, it doesn’t appear that McD found one above average starter. Uber painful considering we had FIVE freaking picks before round 3.

We’ll see what happens with the 2010 picks. Hopefully Tebow, Beadles, Cox and Decker become players. Squid too. I think all five were pretty promising as rookies. Unlike his coaching, McD showed vast improvement in his draft work from year 1 to year 2.

Nate Webster was actually better than Manuel (whom I label as the worst starter in Bronco history).. I actually hated most of the starters on our 2008 D. I don’t think I’ve been a happy Bronco fan in at least four years.

The Lockout bores me.

by McGeorge on Jul 12, 2011 7:30 AM MDT up reply actions

strange childhood with you owning a dead cat. if he can still draft pretty well though, the broncos should give him a look. no way he would’ve passed on orakpo…

by oxmouth on Jul 12, 2011 9:42 AM MDT up reply actions 1 recs

Strange? Yes… but I did have better Bronco teams to root for as a kid than I do as an adult.

Loco, like myself, would have taken Orakpo within 2 seconds of being on the clock. Ayers wouldn’t be a Bronco either, nor Phonz, nor Rich Quinn nor Bradstater. We’d have had a lot more 2010 picks though.

Good kitty.

The Lockout bores me.

by McGeorge on Jul 12, 2011 3:22 PM MDT up reply actions

I guess coming from NE, he had a preference for veterans.

The Orton/Tebow Debate Has Been Settled

by Tim Lynch on Jul 11, 2011 9:30 PM MDT up reply actions

Wonder what lessons he learned from his failed signings of players from his former team?

Now that he is in St Louis, what are the chances we can trade them McBean, Nate Jones, Stan Daniels, Rich Quinn and Hochstein? I’d take a single 6th round pick for the lot.

The Lockout bores me.

by McGeorge on Jul 12, 2011 7:35 AM MDT up reply actions

Lol

+1. I bet he’d give us more though.

Character may be manifested in the great moments but it is made in the small ones -- Philip Brooks
My ship finally came in, but it was the Kobayashi Maru.
Follow me on Twitter @MHR_KaptainKirk

by KaptainKirk on Jul 12, 2011 10:34 AM MDT up reply actions

Your right, it’s McD. Lets as for James Laurinaitis and a 4th. We’ll even throw in Brady Quinn.

The Lockout bores me.

by McGeorge on Jul 12, 2011 3:20 PM MDT up reply actions

One of the reasons we drafted Von Miller

We are devoid of playmakers on defense.

by ConradA on Jul 11, 2011 3:05 PM MDT up reply actions

Or we just won’t play them. I think it’s some of both.

The Lockout bores me.

by McGeorge on Jul 11, 2011 8:48 PM MDT up reply actions

Interesting

not sure if I buy the argument that QB mobility is the drivning factor (would need to see more data about QB rushing yards or something vs. different defenses, etc.), but sure would be interested in seeing a more robust analysis.

I’ve always thought the 3-4 vs. 4-3 has more to due with available somatypes on the D-line and the league being a “copycat” league.

The 4-3 is typically dependent on dominant passrushing DEs… because the 4 rushers are generally set, you have to have folks that can regularly physically beat their defender on the edge without trickery, etc. Having 4 down linemen helps with leverage against the run too.

In contrast, the 3-4 is dependent on DL’s that can soak up double teams (in particular the NT) to hold the point on against the run, as the “standup” nature of the extra LB and generally smaller size of LBs means the DEF is more vulnerable to getting pushed back. Pass-rush is helped because its relatively easy to disguise the 4th rusher.

The beauty of Jim Johnson’s 4-3 zone bllitz and/or the one-gap 3-4 Phillips scheme is it gives some hybrid benefits of both… but both then also suffer from complexity and weaknesses of both too.

There are probably only 5-15 dominant passrushing DEs or dominant run-stopping NTs available any given year… so matching up the dominant players to the right scheme is tough, and more teams will fail than succeed. Given schemes then are fluid, and coaches tend to come from the successful teams (and bring their schemes with them), you get a yo-yo…. e.g. Denver, GB Tampa and Balt succeed with a 4-3 in the 90s and the league shifts, then NE and Pitt succeed with a 3-4 and it shifts back…

But the success is more personnell/scheme match rather than inherent superior-ness of either scheme against particular offenses, because both have strengths and weaknesses.

by cjfarls on Jul 11, 2011 3:06 PM MDT reply actions 1 recs

I agree cjfarls

Personnel is EVERYTHING. A 3-4 can work if blitzing is done right and your lb’s can cover 3rd rec’s, te’s, and rb’s. 4-3 works if you can get pressure on the qb and containment. I also agree that 4-3 is better against running plays and mobile qb’s and 3-4 is better against the pass, generally. Again, it all depends on personnel.

by alkatraz76 on Jul 11, 2011 3:35 PM MDT up reply actions

I did do some research as well as look at interviews

And while it’s hard to really look at without other factors playing in, it sure looks like defensive structure has an impact on varying QB’s. Steve Young didn’t like the 4-3, Vick said the same thing. The 3-4 is well known to upset Brady and Manning. Add in the changing of 3-4 and 4-3 follows the trending of type of QB’s, while not the only factor, I have yet to see a better explaination.

I do agree with your last statement, both have advantages and weaknesses. When the season starts up again, I’m going to examine each QB against a variety of defenses, but even in my shortened study, I did see a difference. And while I can’t say conclusively, I can say somewhat certainly there is a connection.

I am a bear of very little brains and big words bother me.

by Topher Doll on Jul 11, 2011 3:46 PM MDT up reply actions

Perhaps one reason

… is it may be easer to get inside pressure from a 3-4, and easier to get outside pressure from a 4-3?

The edge rusher in a 4-3 makes it harder for a scrambling QB to sneak outside and get away. In a 3-4, blitzing an ILB can make it harder for a pocket guy to stand inside and deliver, while the mobile guy would simply bolt around the uncovered edge….

Still not totally sure i buy it, but there is some speculation on potential reasons.

Perhaps an interesting test of such a hypothesis would be to look at a slow, mobile guy like Big Ben… if such a hypothesis held true, he would act more like a “non-mobile” QB than like a Vick/Young/Elway… BBen is mobile, but only in short-spaces and benefits more from having guys bounce off him rather than running away from anyone…. unfortunately I can’t think of any similar QBs to get a bigger sample size.

Perhaps another test of such a hypothesis would be to look at 4-3’s with dominant passrushing tackles, like TB with Sapp, etc… they should act more like a 3-4 (inside pressure) than the typical 4-3 with edge passrushers (e.g. Colts, etc.)…. but of course, those 4-3’s are still likely to have good/great DE too so the noise may confuse any analysis.

by cjfarls on Jul 12, 2011 10:20 AM MDT up reply actions

When the 2011 season starts

It’s going to be one of the things I track, so we’ll see for sure, at least hopefully, after this season.

I am a bear of very little brains and big words bother me.

by Topher Doll on Jul 12, 2011 12:49 PM MDT up reply actions

im not 2 worried about our D

John Fox will do wonders for our Defense. We got the Quarterback Killas DOOM and Miller. We got one of the best in Champ. We got the wolverine Brian Dawkins, and we got the STEAL of the draft Mike Mohammed. Our D wont be top 5 but it will improve immensely.

No save ammunition all bullets in gun now- Bruce Campbell
Stand up straight a man looks more confident when he is erect- Taj
I don't always drink and drive, but when I do, I prefer Dos Equis- BroncoPH
BRONCOS 4 LIFE

by Taylor K on Jul 11, 2011 7:56 PM MDT reply actions

Lol

It won’t take much to improve. The 32nd ranked defense can’t get any worse. =)

Character may be manifested in the great moments but it is made in the small ones -- Philip Brooks
My ship finally came in, but it was the Kobayashi Maru.
Follow me on Twitter @MHR_KaptainKirk

by KaptainKirk on Jul 11, 2011 9:19 PM MDT up reply actions 1 recs

agree.

in most pro sports the difference between bottom shelf and middle of the pack can be as little as a coaching, player, or even momentum change. i think the D should have a goal of being no less than 16th ranked this year. i mean, if there’s football and all…

by oxmouth on Jul 12, 2011 9:46 AM MDT up reply actions

I'm with Kirk

Getting Doom back improved our defense a lot, the rest is just icing, thought I doubt we come anywhere near being a good defense just yet.

I am a bear of very little brains and big words bother me.

by Topher Doll on Jul 11, 2011 9:28 PM MDT up reply actions

Speed

Watching games last year it looked like our linebackers and db’s were wearing lead shoes, they were a step slow. I think they drafted for speed and leadership from what I see. I’m always wearing the rose colored glasses this time of year but I think we are going to be alot better on defense, I’m sure they will get some d tackles

by Baghdad on Jul 11, 2011 11:24 PM MDT reply actions

agree baghdad

The epitomizing play of the year to me was Dawkins running fruitlessly behind Sproles on the long screen pass…

The fact that Dawk or Hill and possibly Mays are still likely to be starting, and that our newer faster guys are likely to be mistake prone tempers my enthusiam for this year… but I like the long-term potential.

by cjfarls on Jul 12, 2011 1:37 PM MDT up reply actions

Another fine analysis - rec'd

I’m impressed that you were able to pull up the data on the 4-3 vs the 3-4. It would be painstaking, but you could fill in the gaps in the data by looking team-by-team at pro football reference and seeing whether the team used a 4-3 or a 3-4. For example

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/atl/lineups.htm
The Falcons played a 4-3 in 78-79, 83-85, 93-01 and 04-10
They played a 3-4 in 80-82, 86-92 and 02-03

The trends are unmistakable. Offenses realized at some point in the late 80’s how much TOs effect victories, so the shift was made to calling plays which were lower risk (shorter passes) and to better ball security. This put a huge premium on the few defensive players in the league who could individually create TOs – the shut-down corners, the ball stripping LBs and the sack artists.

by DE_BroncoFan on Jul 12, 2011 7:21 AM MDT reply actions

so then how do we explain the shift back to 3-4 in the 00's?

So 4-3 DEFs were designed to create big plays on DEF by emphasizing those dominant sack artist DEs and shutdown corners, but all of a sudden NE and Pitt come along in the 00’s and those DEF players become afterthoughts as the league shifts back to a 3-4 dominance?

Plus in the late90’s/early 2000s, many DEFs shifted to the very conservative Tampa-2 scheme (4-3), with relatively poor corners, and LBs playing soft… basically giving the other team 2-3 yard gains but limiting big plays and forcing the offense to have mistake-free 15+ play drives down the field… In some ways mimicking the conservativeness of a traditional 3-4 scheme…. isn’t this the opposite of what you claim was the goal (forcing turnovers)?

I agree there are trends… but this doesn’t really explain it to me, and the drop in turnovers doesn’t match the scheme shift data well.

Simplest answer, and therefore Occam’s Razor suggests, that the league is a copycat league, so when one team(s) has success (SF, WAS, DAL, in the late 80s/90s for the 4-3 shift, NE and Pitt for the 3-4 shift in the 00’s) the schemes shift to follow them as the coaching tree branches out, folks copying the “innovators”, etc….

Plus, those coaching tree’s success is often driven by HOF QBs… the scheme used is therefore often likely as much luck as it is any attempt to matchup either current players or opponents. SF had Montana and Young, Denver had Elway, GB had Farve, DAL had the whole slew of players from the Hershel Walker trade + Aikmen, NE had Brady, Indy had Peyton, etc…

Question folks have to answer is: Are those coaching trees half what they would’ve been without lucking into those generational players, and if those teams don’t win the SB, do the teams adopt their schemes subsequent years? For example, Jimmy Johnson was an amazing defensive innovator for years with his 4-3 zone blitz and had sustained success in Philly, but it wasn’t until Spags won the SB that the scheme really has been adopted more broadly (with similar variants now in PHI, NYG, STL, NOLA and potentially now Denver depending on what Allen/Fox does).

by cjfarls on Jul 12, 2011 12:36 PM MDT up reply actions