FanHouse Jeffhostetler

Being a football fan in New Jersey with no allegiances to the locals has been an interesting experience in the last couple of weeks, to say the least. As Favremania has gripped the region, there haven't been a lot of rational thinkers out there -- just a lot of hysteria. I couldn't get away from it. I sought refuge at last weekend's All Points West festival, where I figured the hipsters, hippies, and Radiohead fanatics would reject any semblance of professional sport. But, no, there was this.

Through it all, I've seen nothing but bad ahead for Brett Favre and the Jets. The opinion is probably more prevalent across the nation, but in my little vacuum this is the best thing to happen to the area since The Beatles played Shea, or, you know, The Sopranos. I've been a lonely voice in my homestate.

But Joe Theismann and former Giant quarterback Jeff Hostetler have my back. Both cite the location more than the decision itself as a mistake. Theismann thinks that New York is simply a "void-filler" for Favre, and that his lack of desire to play there will ruin him. Hostetler thinks that the prickish fanbase will turn on him and render him paralyzed from culture shock (my words, not his).

Both men (surprisingly, in Theismann's case) make excellent points, and they're well worth considering for any Jets fan who has conveniently forgotten the phrase "buyer beware." Hate to ruin the puppy dog parade, Jets fans, but it's better to be prepared than smacked by reality.

Earlier today, quarterback Trent Dilfer retired from the NFL, ending one of the most interesting careers. Dilfer went from bust, to journeyman, to go-to insider guy during his 14-year NFL career.

In the middle of that, he was the starting QB on the Baltimore Ravens' Super Bowl Championship team.

So, with Dilfer retiring, Sporting News decided to rank the worst QBs to win a Super Bowl as a starter. Dilfer finished second (SN did say that there have been no bad quarterbacks to win a Super Bowl). The top spot went to the Giants Jeff Hostetler.

Giants fans will always have a warm place in their hearts for Hoss, who stepped in for an injured Phil Simms (more on him later) and gutted his way to the finish line in 1990. But all he proved as a starter over the next six seasons -- the last four with the Raiders -- was that he couldn't make his teams better. Only one of those teams, the 1993 Raiders, made the playoffs.

Again, there are no horrible QBs on this list ... which is evident by some of the names Dilfer ranked "ahead of".

Since winning the Super Bowl, the football world has enveloped the New York Giants in one of the biggest group hugs of all time. People are tripping all over themselves to come up with superlatives worthy of David Tyree's catch and Steve Spagnuolo's coaching. There's only one guy not feeling the love. Jeremy Shockey.

Since breaking his leg in Week 15, Shockey's only been spotted once, sitting in a Glendale suite where he sucked down tallboys and watched his team play in the Super Bowl. The Giants won, of course, and Shockey's backup Kevin Boss made a huge play which made it easy to forget the role Shockey once played on the Giant offense. Integral to both the run and pass game, he had 57 catches before getting hurt and blocked with good success.

You'd think that the thought of the return of a healthy Shockey in 2008 would make heads dance. After all, Eli Manning's ascension to confident quarterback would pay great dividends with Shockey joining the talented wideouts in pressuring defenses. Instead, there's been a lot of nitpicking about Shockey not being on the sideline on Sunday or at the parade on Tuesday, ignoring his broken leg, and, now, calls for the end of his tenure with the team. Vinnie Iyer of the Sporting News says the Giants would be best served by trading Shockey.

That's a little play on Herm Edwards' famous quote: "You play to win the game." But it's a very applicable quote, when we talk about how the Chiefs have used Damon Huard. Perhaps we should spin that quote a little bit, because right now, the Chiefs are playing to NOT LOSE the game.

Those of you that gripe about the Chiefs' conservative gameplan on Sunday should take a long look at the quarterback.
Some of you were expecting Huard to become the next Kurt Warner. Huard is what he is. He is a backup quarterback. As we discovered on Sunday, he is a solid backup; a veteran backup. But he is a backup for a reason. He is a good quarterback to plug in--he won't make mistakes, but he is not one that you can rely on to win games for you.

The #1 priority for a backup quarterback is to win half of the games for you, should your starting quarterback miss a few games. Every once in a while, you luck out. You find a Jeff Hostetler or a Kurt Warner and they do the unthinkable: they prove to everyone that they deserve to start in this league. Sometimes, they prove they can carry their team the distance. So many people are so infatuated with the exception that they don't pay attention to the rule.

The majority of backups in this league are backups for a reason. Most of them are backups because they couldn't earn a starting job elsewhere. It's a position where failed starting quarterbacks like Joey Harrington and Charlie Batch can find new life. Sometimes, it's a position where you can stash your future-bright, young quarterback, like Jay Cutler. It really depends on your philosophy. I like to think that the Chiefs are taking a very mechanical approach. Would you trust Brodie Croyle to come in and play quarterback with the season on the line? I know many of you are furiously nodding your head, but suppose you're wrong. Suppose he becomes the second-coming of Joey Harrington. Do you really want his first NFL jitters to be shaken off with the season on the line? The trend has quickly become to let quarterbacks absorb the NFL before they're thrown to the wolves. It seemed to work wonderfully for Carson Palmer and Eli Manning.

With Green only out a few games, do you risk losing all your games to play a quarterback who might not be ready? Huard doesn't have upside, but he can win games for the team. This Sunday's game was a perfect example of that: the Chiefs almost upstaged Denver not because Huard almost led them to victory; rather, they almost won because Huard did not lose the game for them. It's about minimizing mistakes, even if that means not making big plays.

Damon Huard was playing not to lose and he did his job magnificently. By making relatively few mistakes and operating like a veteran backup, he gave the Chiefs a very good chance to win against a Denver team that was supposed to destroy the Chiefs. The Chiefs have to feel pretty comfortable now with their decision to keep Huard on their roster. Hopefully Chiefs fans will see the same. If Huard wins half of his starts, he has done his job well, and will have put the Chiefs in a good position to still threaten for a playoff spot.