ESPN NFL

Enough. No more talking in platitudes. No more general complaints based on reputation. And let's stop with the complaints about reputation. I'm tired of hearing people, whether they are in the media or otherwise, claim Detroit Lions defensive tackle Ndamukong Suh is a dirty player as a matter of course.

I want specifics.

I want rule citations.

I want context.

Several Atlanta Falcons players are the latest to make this charge, claiming Suh spoke disrespectfully toward injured quarterback Matt Ryan last Sunday at Ford Field. Suh has denied saying anything. Nevertheless, the episode has spawned another round of media/fan debates on whether, or the extent to which, Suh plays dirty.

In Tuesday's SportsNation chat, Dave of Phoenix suggested Suh "has brought all of this on himself" and "has made his reputation with his actions."

I'm not sure I agree. During the chat, my top-of-the-head response was recalling only one instance in Suh's career that I thought was dirty. And I define "dirty" as a blatant attempt outside the rules to injure an opponent.

That instance came in the 2010 preseason, a play that to me is largely responsible for this ongoing discussion. As you can see in this NFL.com video, Suh grabbed the face mask/helmet of Cleveland Browns quarterback Jake Delhomme and spun him violently and awkwardly to the ground. The NFL fined Suh $7,500 for the play. How Delhomme escaped injury on that play, I'll never know.

Beyond that, however, I'm not sure I could come up with enough examples to support a debate. Some of you might cite the 2010 regular-season game when Suh tackled Dallas Cowboys running back Marion Barber by his hair. Officials called him for a horse-collar tackle, a bad call based on NFL rules that consider the hair an extension of the body. (NFL.com video here.)

Others might note his unnecessary roughness penalty on Cincinnati Bengals quarterback Andy Dalton in the 2011 preseason. (NFL.com video here.) The NFL fined him $20,000 for that play. I thought it was a violent hit and probably in violation of NFL rules. But dirty? Was he blatantly attempting to injure? Not to me.

There are two sides to every issue, of course. And that's where "Have at It" comes in. If you believe Suh is in fact a dirty player, I want examples in the comments section below. Links to video would help. Build your case instead of just making a general observation. As always, I'll publish a representative sample of your thoughts, along with my own take, by the end of the week. Have at It.

I was legitimately thrilled with your discussion this week of what could have been your basic "he's-better-than-him" slugfest. I asked you to consider the nuances of KC Joyner's column on Chicago Bears tailback Matt Forte, and by and large you did that.

To review: Joyner's believes Forte's skill set is underrated and that he is "as good as" Minnesota Vikings tailback Adrian Peterson when you analyze the full picture of their production. Joyner cited the Bill James maxim that players who do several things well tend to be underrated.

I asked you if you think all-purpose backs like Forte should be more valued than they are. Case in point: Peterson ranked No. 2 on ESPN.com's offseason power rankings for running backs, while Forte didn't receive a vote. They finished the 2010 season with about the same total of all-purpose yards (1,639 for Peterson and 1,616 for Forte) last season.

Many of you fell in line with escortzx21984, who noted that "this is not a black and white argument." Escortzx21984 continued:

"The fact that teams can't immediately know an all-purpose back's role in a given play is also an advantage. No defense is on the field trembling because they don't know where Peterson is going with the ball. They plan for his run game. A good all-purpose back brings another veil for the offense to hide its intentions behind. That unpredictability is what helps teams beat good defenses.

"Peterson's raw power and reckless abandon are what help him. He would average three yards a carry if he cared about having a long NFL career because defenses always get to him. Instead, his highlights make him look like a tackle-breaking machine (because those defenses always know where to find him) and he breaks a few runs off for huge gains."

Mikem.finke asked: "Why have a great rusher with stone hands when you can have a really good rusher with really good hands?" I'm not sure that Peterson has stone hands, but as Pro Football Focus has documented, he has been near the bottom of the NFL in percentage of passes dropped for a running back. And from watching both players' careers, I think we can agree that Forte excels in relatively difficult receiving situations, including fade routes down the sideline, while most of Peterson's chances are screen and swing passes.

Forte has demonstrated those skills in two different offensive schemes, those run by Mike Martz and Ron Turner. As dmill2069 points out: "[Forte] is worked into the passing game because he is a route-running RB who can create mismatches for teams out wide but his hands are good enough where coaches can depend on him as a receiver."

All of this is to say that Forte has some skills Peterson does not. Returning to Mikem.finke: "[W]ho would take Forte over AP? No one. But it is definitely something that should be talked about."

A few of you couldn't get past the use of both players in the same sentence. Jimbob50cent: "I have never heard of a team game planning around Forte, just as I have never heard of a team game plan around Reggie Bush. Teams definitely plan for [Peterson] because if they do not they get burned."

Why? Because Peterson's running skills are elite. Wrote Joker22310: "Clearly, a back who's a bruiser who can take it up the middle, around the end, or off tackle and break some out for big gains is more important to a team than a multi-purpose back. You simply cannot compensate for not having a back like Peterson. You can, however, compensate for the receiving yards that Forte gets with a solid slot receiver, tight-end, catching fullback (oxymoron I know) or any number of other packages. This is pretty easy."

Ultimately, some of you agreed, each team has done a good job in maximizing its players' skills. Steward2778 noted: "Peterson is stronger and built to run between tackles and break tackles. Forte is not, so he is put in space more to take advantage of his speed, hands and elusiveness. Does it matter how they move the ball? No."

In the end, wrote cds2477: "[P]layers who do several things well are underrated. What Joyner is suggesting is that Forte has the same value to the Bears as Peterson has to the Vikings. Would the Vikings trade Peterson for Forte, NO. Would the Bears trade Forte for Peterson, NO."

My take? I think we should separate the ideas of how each team uses its running back and whether one would want to trade for the other. If you made a list of each player's skills, Peterson's between-the-tackles running would rank in another stratosphere. The biggest advantage he has is the ability to execute running plays better than all but maybe one player in the NFL. I think the Bears would welcome that elite skill set even though they have done an excellent job maximizing Forte.

With that said, this wasn't a question of whether we would take Peterson or Forte if given a choice. It was whether, in the big picture, we should attach more value than we currently do to a player who finds different ways to rack up an elite level of yards.

I'm already on record saying I made a personal mistake by not including Forte among my top 10 running backs for the Power Rankings project. Seeing him play more often than other colleagues should have heightened my awareness and appreciation and lifted me from conventional wisdom.

So here's where I land: We should spend more time considering the "what" -- in this case, total yardage -- than the "how." But that doesn't mean we ignore the "how" or "why," either.

In the end, what I value most is the rarity of skills. A really good all-purpose back can produce nearly as many yards as Peterson. He can be almost as good. But a player with the elite skills to gain yardage when no yardage is schematically available? You can't overrate that.

Many of us see the world in black and white, and so it was human nature for you to see the subject matter of KC Joyner's latest analysis and gasp. You need an ESPN Insider subscription to read the entire piece, but here was the headline: "Why Matt Forte rivals Adrian Peterson."

Joyner never suggested he would choose Forte over Peterson. What he did, however, was apply sports analyst Bill James' tent that "players who do several things well are underrated." Forte is an excellent receiver and has more all-purpose yards over the past three seasons than all but four NFL players.

Joyner employed a number of metrics to argue that Forte is "as good as Peterson." He noted Forte has averaged nearly the same yards per touch as Peterson during his career, while also quantifying what Joyner reported was the Bears' significantly inferior run blocking last season. (Specifics are reserved for Insider subscribers. Sorry.)

So for this installment of Have at It, I'm not going to ask whether you prefer Peterson or Forte. Too easy. What I do want to know is if you, like Bill James and K.C. Joyner, think all-purpose backs like Forte should be valued more in the court of public opinion. (Example: In our ESPN.com offseason power rankings for running backs, Peterson finished No. 2. Forte didn't receive a vote.)

I think we can agree that Peterson is the harder, faster and more physical runner from a traditional standpoint. But does it matter how a player accumulates his yards? Or are the cumulative results the most important? Should we judge "running backs" and "football players" separately?

The question is a bit nuanced, but ultimately more interesting to me -- and hopefully to you. As always, let me know your thoughts in the comments section below. I'll publish a representative sample, along with my own take, by the end of the week. Have at It.

As it often does, Tuesday's SportsNation chat generated what should be a lively Have at It topic this week. Here is the exchange:

Scott (Northglenn, CO)

Who will have better rookie numbers -- Titus Young or Randall Cobb?

Kevin Seifert (3:00 PM)

Really like that one. ... I might throw that out as a Have at It later this week. First thought would be Young when comparing the depth on both sides, but a lot will depend on how quickly each guy can assimilate the offense given a shorter-than-expected offseason.

Both players were diminutive but dynamic college playmakers who pushed themselves into the second round of last month's draft. After that, however, the comparisons tend to fade. Some factors to consider in this debate:

• As the chart shows, both the Packers and Lions already boast a hefty stable of pass-catchers. But the Packers have more depth at the receiver position, even if James Jones departs via free agency and Donald Driver moves into a more limited role. Cobb has the opportunity for plenty of snaps, but in Detroit, Young could step into a quasi-starter role as the No. 3 receiver behind Calvin Johnson and Nate Burleson.
• Both players have return capabilities, but Cobb is more likely to get that opportunity than Young. The Packers had no set kickoff returner in 2010, and I'm sure they would prefer to get cornerback Tramon Williams out of the punt return job. The Lions, on the other hand, had one of the league's best returners in 2010, Stefan Logan. Special-teams production should play a factor in this debate.
• Cobb played both receiver and running back at Kentucky, and it wouldn't be stunning if he saw some action in the backfield for the Packers. Will it be enough to impact a statistical competition? I'm not sure about that.
• As with any comparison of receivers, the identity and efficiency of the quarterback is critical. It's fair to say that Cobb has an advantage with Aaron Rodgers. The Lions have high hopes for quarterback Matthew Stafford, but a young receiver's development is contingent on consistency from the quarterback. Stafford has yet to prove he can make it through a 16-game NFL season.

I'm sure there are other points to be made as well. Let me know your thoughts in the comments section below. I would also like to try something new and have you participate in a SportsNation poll on the topic as well. I'll publish both a representative sample of your comments and the polls results -- along with my own take, of course -- later this week. Have at It.

This week's Have at It was intended for mature audiences. DomDoyle was disappointed at the participation level, but I would rather have an intelligent conversation among friends (at least on this week's issue) than the chaotic free-for-alls these posts occasionally devolve into.

The issue was whether recent revelations about head injuries and the psychological health of former NFL players has changed your thinking on the safety of the game. Would you allow your child to play football? The suicide of former Chicago Bears safety Dave Duerson, since revealed to have a form of brain damage present in at least two dozen other deceased players, has added a horrific local angle to this debate.

Some of you didn't view the issue as a dispute. "Football is dangerous?" wrote DLions1026. "Who knew?"

DLions1026 added: "Fact of the matter is, life in general is dangerous. There are more people killed or seriously injured driving to the store to get a gallon of milk. We, as human beings, take risks. We do what we love. If my son wants to continue to play a game that he loves, I can't stand in his way and say no because it is dangerous. Jumping out of an airplane is dangerous, but we still do it. Mountain climbing is dangerous. Surfing or just swimming in the ocean in general. Each and every sport has its dangers, everything has a risk.

"The alternative is staying at home, sitting on the couch, being afraid to go out and enjoy life, being scared of everything, to me that is the bigger danger. Live and let live. This news doesn't surprise me. Does it concern me? Sure. But it won't change anything. People will do what they love, as well as they should."

I don't disagree, although the analogies of driving cars or jumping out of airplanes don't entirely work for me. Driving is safe until something goes wrong. The same goes for jumping out of airplanes. The fear with the future mental health of football players is that it's based on the fundamental nature of playing the game -- violent and unavoidable head contact -- rather than being an outlier.

No matter the circumstances, many of you see the issue as a matter of free-willed risk. "Either play or don't," wrote Dr. Doom6. "Playing football is a choice," wrote Tearloch, who offered some suggested for making it less dangerous that included stricter safety requirements for helmets.

Players must accept the risk involved, wrote pjm901: "There is no way you are going to eliminate head trauma from football. Intentional or not guys are going to get hit in the head. You can make some improvements in technique, both on offensive and defensive players, and in helmets. Ultimately football is a violent sport and unfortunately some players are going to have long term problems once their playing days are over."

That's a sobering thought for all us. Is any game worth that sort of risk? A person could lead an invigorating and fulfilling life without playing football. The same couldn't be said of someone who, for example, refuses to ride in a car for fear of the inherent risk of a crash. Some risks are more necessary than others.

KonnerKWHSLine, for one, has seen too much. Here's a snippet: "For our family which is 60 years invested into the game the answer is 'No More'. That is the hardest thing I thought I would ever say.

"But after seeing my father crippled from six years of collegiate ball, two sons with multiple concussions and one who lost his memory and can't work, and the horrors I have witnessed as a youth coach for 20 years I changed my mind. What most football people like me never get to understand or see is the great number or affected players and former players. We are trained to hide this particular injury."

My take? This was a difficult issue for me. I always tell you what I think on this blog, but I try to avoid telling you about me. That's not what this blog is about, and it's (presumably) not why you come here. So when I posted the original question, I wasn't sure how I would address whether I want my children to play football.

That's why I was so glad to read Mjoldnir's response. He eerily nailed every thought I had, pro and con, and I'm sure you would rather read it in the words of your fellow reader than my own. In short, I'm hoping I never have to make a ruling on this issue in my own life.

Here's what Mjoldnir wrote:

"I played football for as long as I could, beginning with pee-wee, and through high school. I wasn't good enough for the college game by a longshot! But I loved everything about being on a football team: practices in the dirt and mud, the camaraderie, even the coach grabbing my facemask and screaming at me when I botched a play. Football pushed me past the point where I might have otherwise given up, and instilled the values of determination, work ethic and teamwork. Especially teamwork.

"I love how everything I did was part of a bigger picture, how a missed block on the backside of a play could wind up blowing the play up. It taught me to sweat the little stuff, to see the big picture, and to always have the backs of the people on my team. That's carried over to my career and even my personal life. These are huge life lessons that I'm not sure I could have learned as effectively from any other sport or endeavor.

"And yet I pray my son never asks me to sign a permission slip to play football, because I don't know if I could tell him no. I want my son to learn those life lessons. Maybe even a shredded knee would be worth it. But I don't want my boy -- the most precious thing in my life -- to risk damaging his brain."

Amen. Amen. Amen.

Fully of holiday cheer, Sundevilaw announced early on that our Week 16 "Have at It" was "pretty lame" and wondered who might care about the outcome.

In fact, there is limited real-word relevance to whether the Detroit Lions or Minnesota Vikings finish the season in last place of the NFC North. The NFL will incorporate it into the scheduling formula for a 2011 season that might or might not take place, but that's about it.

From what I could tell, the comments were mostly unanimous and reflective of the divergent moods in each team's fan base.

"The Vikings finish last," wrote erhancoc. "They've completely given up this season. It was absolutely embarrassing to see them fold up shop against the Bears in a meaningful game with a great crowd behind them. It's not often you see a professional franchise display that little pride and heart, and right now I'd take any NFL team plus a lot of college teams over them."

I don't know if I would go quite that far, but the Lions' schedule does have some built-in advantages. They'll travel to Miami this weekend to play a Dolphins team that is 1-6 at home this season. And their season-ending game against the Vikings will take place at Ford Field, where the Lions are 3-4 in 2010.

Wrote googlegirl0102: "I think the Lions win out. Miami is not very good at home, for whatever reason, and the Vikings seem to be in freefall."

Fortunately, some of you expanded the topic into a bigger-picture discussion about the futures of both franchises. Again, those of you who took the time to comment suggested the Lions have positioned themselves for quicker future success than the Vikings -- regardless of who finishes third or fourth this season.

"I'm not sure it matters who finishes last THIS season," wrote machinemanske. "It seems more poignant to look ahead. In doing so, it is plain to see one team on the rise as the other, by most indications, circling the drain. Jump ahead 5 years and it would seem the Lions could be legitimate contenders while the Vikings could be one of the very worst teams in the league. On the bright side, maybe the Vikings will be in a new city, or have a new facility, or at least a new roof.............or not."

Ouch.

Tyslink tried to tap the brakes on that discussion: "All this talk about the Lions being on the rise is a bit laughable. How about we all wait until they actually contend for at least a division title before we get all hot and bothered with the Lions?"

But DomDoyle offered this reasonable compromise: "I wouldn't put the Lions in Super Bowl contention quite yet ... but I would say that I wouldn't trade our roster for the Vikings roster."

Concluded Briley508: "This article just made me hate my life a little bit."

My take? I'm not sure if the Lions will beat the Dolphins this weekend, but I would be absolutely stunned if the Vikings win Sunday night at Philadelphia. So at worst, the Lions should have an opportunity to escape the cellar by defeating the Vikings in Week 17. Based on the Vikings' level of disinterest in the past two weeks, I wouldn't be surprised in the least if it happened.

To what extent would that matter? It would be an awfully symbolic landing place for the Vikings, who committed one of the NFL's highest payrolls this season in one final effort to win the Super Bowl with their current nucleus. And it would serve as a small measure of progress for the Lions in the recovery process from their 0-16 season in 2008. Small moves, Ellie. Small moves.

The top half of our 2010 NFC North standings are set. The Chicago Bears have won the division title, and the 8-6 Green Bay Packers will finish second no matter what they do in their final two games. That leaves only one question to answer: Who will avoid finishing last?

The Detroit Lions have an opportunity to pull themselves from the division cellar for the first time in three years, a symbolic building block in their planned resurgence. The Lions (4-10) trail the Minnesota Vikings (5-9) by one game, but the two teams will meet in a Jan. 2 regular-season finale at Ford Field.

Divisional position doesn't impact draft order, where ties are broken by strength of schedule, but it is still relevant. The NFL incorporates it into its future scheduling formula and uses the same tiebreakers we more frequently hear about when it comes to playoff seeding.

So for this week's "Have at It," I'm curious how you see this playing out. Keep in mind that the Lions would win the tiebreaker if both teams finish 5-11 or 6-10 because of a better division record.

The Lions, who have won two consecutive games, will travel to the Miami Dolphins this Sunday. The Vikings, who have lost their past two games by a combined score of 61-17, will play at the Philadelphia Eagles on Sunday night.

Who will it be? Leave your thoughts in the comments section below. I'll publish a representative sample, as well as my own thoughts, later this week. Have at It.

Count my friend and ESPN 1500 radio host Patrick Reusse among those who don't want the NFL's playoff format changed, regardless of whether a sub.-500 division winner qualifies over, say, an 11-5 wild-card contender.

"I love the fact that it's now become an open point of discussion that they should not allow a losing team from the NFC West to advance to the playoffs," Reusse bellowed during my appearance on his show this week. "What is wrong with people? The team that wins is going to advance to the playoffs! Shut up!"

I did at the time, but I'm hoping Reusse doesn't check out the NFC North blog today. Many of you took me up on this week's "Have at It" offer to discuss the state of the league's postseason format, spurred by a SportsNation chat question on the possibility that the Green Bay Packers or Chicago Bears could miss the playoffs while the St. Louis Rams or Seattle Seahawks -- both 5-6 at the moment -- get in as NFC West champions.

Reusse won't be happy with WiSportsFn, who wrote: "A division winner needs to have a winning record (9-7) to make the playoffs. I could handle having a better record and not making the playoffs if the worst division winner at least had a winning record. They need to make that a rule. How can the NFL justify giving a 8-8 or 7-9 a home game and more than likely bumping out a better team? Something to be looked at in the next CBA."

Absent that stipulation, the NFL could also resolve the issue by adding more playoff spots. Wrote BJS1977: "I say we add two more wild card teams per conference and make all 4 divisional winners play in the wild card round. That would allow for the GOOD teams that got snubbed by the [bad] division winners to make the playoffs. And w/ the looming expansion to 18 games, this would be more incentive for teams and their players to buy into the extra 2 games per year. Not to mention making for a MORE exciting postseason."

Vikingslave01 argued that additional postseason teams "just waters down the playoffs altogether," a common refrain that brought some of you to a less dramatic tweak. Seeding playoff teams by record and tiebreakers, rather than whether they won a division, is the "fairest way to do it," wrote jonrifraf.

As we noted in the original post, only two 11-5 teams have missed the playoffs since the expansion to a 16-game schedule in 1978. That frequency is too rare for many of you. "It doesn't happen a lot, so why change it?" wrote tyslink.

If an 11-5 team misses the playoffs, that means it was bested by three others who performed better -- winning either that team's division or else qualifying for a wild card berth ahead of it. It's not as if the 11-5 team was helpless in the matter. Wrote brianinindy: "Sometimes you lose the wrong games. Simple. Don't lose."

My take? Although I'm not as fired up as my friend Patrick, I'm mostly in favor of the current format -- and plan to stick with that view even if it means the Packers or Bears go home after Week 17. I don't think two instances in 32 years is enough to merit a move away from division-based playoff berths, and I think maintaining the four-division set-up per conference maximizes drama in December.

I do like your idea of changing the seeding process, however. A division title should bring a playoff berth, but I'm not sure it justifies a home playoff game. I'd like to see playoffs seedings reflect the best teams at the top and the worst at the bottom, and the only way to do that is by record.

It's true there might not be much of a difference between a 10-6 wild-card team and a 9-7 division winner. But to me, it's fair to recognize that on a year-to-year basis, some divisions are much stronger than others. Finishing in second place in the NFC North this season could well be a bigger accomplishment than winning the NFC West. I would be fine with seedings that reflected as much.

Michael started it off during Tuesday's SportsNation chat. The relevant exchange:

Michael (Norfolk)

If the Packers go 11-5 and still miss the playoffs, but we get an NFC West team that makes the playoffs at 7-9, is it time for things to change?

Kevin Seifert (2:26 PM)

I don't think so. There has to be incentive to win a division. What would your idea be?

We kicked around a few thoughts during the chat, but I think we should open the debate to our full community.

The chart shows the NFC's top eight teams by order of potential playoff seeding if the season ended this week. The Packers and Tampa Bay Buccaneers, both 7-4, wouldn't qualify. But at 5-6, the St. Louis Rams would be the No. 4 seed because of their NFC West lead.

This is an old(er) issue with a 2010, NFC North-related twist. Our top-heavy conference leaves open the possibility that the Packers or even Chicago Bears (8-3) could miss the playoffs in a year that a .500 (or worse) team could be guaranteed a spot as NFC West champions.

So let me know what you think and what suggestions you might have. A few points to guide the initial conversation:

• Since the 1978 expansion to a 16-game schedule, two 11-5 teams have missed the playoffs: The 1985 Denver Broncos and the 2008 New England Patriots. Would two occasions be enough to make dramatic changes to the playoff system?
• This year promises an especially tight playoff race. According to the NFL, we are entering the first Week 13 since 2000 with no chance for any team to clinch a playoff spot.
• In Tuesday's chat, Nick and Mike suggested a re-alignment that left each conference with two divisions. That change would all but eliminate the possibility of a .500 team getting an automatic playoff bid. But would it also reduce the drama of division races?

As always, I'll publish a representative sample of your responses, as well as my own take, by the end of the week. Have at It.

We've spent some time lately discussing the Chicago Bears' difficult schedule over the final two months of the season. But for one weekend, at least, it's no tougher than what the Green Bay Packers are facing.

That idea was the impetus for Sam's question during Tuesday's SportsNation chat, and I think it provides a relevant way to discuss the ongoing race for the NFC North title. First, the exchange:

Sam (Milwaukee)

Who has a better chance of winning, Green Bay or Chicago this weekend and why?

Kevin Seifert (2:10 PM)

Interesting one. Bears play at home, which is huge. I don't have the exact stat in front of me, but the Packers have a pretty tough task ahead of them. Matt Ryan hasn't often lost at home in his career in Atlanta. But I think the Eagles might be better than the Falcons at this point. I'll say the Bears because they are at home, but I really don't have a clue.

("I really don't have a clue." How is that for a so-called expert's answer?)

As you know, the Bears will host the 7-3 Philadelphia Eagles at Soldier Field. The Packers will travel to the Atlanta Falcons (8-2), who currently reside atop ESPN.com's Power Rankings. Both games are tough matchups for many reasons. Here are two:

1. Indeed, Ryan is 18-1 in games he's started at home over the past three years. That's a specific way to note that, generally speaking, the Falcons have been awfully difficult to beat at the Georgia Dome in recent years.
2. The Eagles are 4-1 on the road this season in large part because they protect the football. The Eagles have committed only 11 turnovers this season, the fourth-fewest in the league. That trend would seem to neutralize one of the Bears' top attributes: Creating turnovers on defense.

So what's your vote? Who has a better chance to win this weekend, the Bears or Packers? Let me know your thoughts in the comment section below. I'll publish a representative sample, along with some thoughts of my own, by the end of the week. Have at It.

We were never going to solve the (football) world's problems in one random post, but I thought you guys and gals gave it a pretty good run in this week's "Have at It." I asked you if the NFL's officiating could be improved. And if so, how?

It's true. This post was sparked by Sunday night's game at Lambeau Field, which had three touchdowns reversed by instant replay and two calls that the NFL ultimately acknowledged were wrong. But as close readers of the blog know, huge officiating blunders have been a weekly staple this season in the NFC North. I could spend the next 1,000 words just listing them all. I mean, could you imagine what would have happened if the Minnesota Vikings had won Sunday night's game on Percy Harvin's clearly illegitimate touchdown reception with 48 seconds remaining?

But instead of hashing through each instance, let's instead try to be productive for a few minutes. Can anything be done to even out at least some of the most egregious calls?

As is often the case, some of you rejected the initial premise. "The players certainly aren't perfect," wrote dgnfcnorthaz. "I can't see why people expect the referees to be perfect." Metalsman was more verbose:

Face it people, until we go to robotic games where artificial intelligence oversees everything, we will always have the "human element." That's just the way it is.

There will always be missed calls, wrong calls, overturned/upheld calls. Above all else, there will always be judgment calls. That's the "human element" of it all. The NFL, coaches, players, fans and organizations can wish all they like for refs to "just get it right the first time, or get it right with replay." But until you take the human element, OUT of the game, we will forever find ourselves embroiled in controversial calls.

Pretty easy to figure out really. If everyone wants every single call right... then let's change the game and just take humans out of it.

Fair enough, but there is a difference between the "human element" and poor performance. What we saw Sunday night, and on multiple other occasions, was closer to the latter.

NFL officials are not full-time employees of the league, which RestoreTheRoarMan sees as a fundamental problem: "The best way in my opinion is to provide intense training for the officials. Have them spend the entire week reviewing film of the plays that helped write the rulebook. Show them film of blown calls and explain to them why the calls were made the way they were. Depending on where they are on the field, they should be required to endure a large amount of training about how the game is played by players in different positions. Specialize the officials, in other words."

Discipline for poor performance should also be considered, wrote mer810: "Many scoff at the thought of fining a referee or an entire crew for botched calls, but it seems to me to be the only fair option. It hardly seems kosher that a coach gets fined for having an opinion about a bad call, yet the ref who commits the bad call goes virtually unpunished. Any other aspect of the league is subject to fines for various indiscretions (players, coaches, presidents, teams) yet the refs get a free pass. They are compensated to do a job, and like anyone who doesn't perform a job up to par, there should be consequences to pay (pun intended)."

Of course, the NFL doesn't publicize much about the way it handles officials. For all we know, fines and/or suspensions are handed out on a weekly basis. That Iron Curtain is part of the problem, wrote cags777: "What I see from the NFL is a corporation not willing to add any accountability to the public. Yet, it is players and coaches who are the ones who are punished. ... Unless the NFL is willing to be more transparent and at least try to improve with making concrete rules with what a catch is and what clubs are supposed to do with instant replay on the big screens, there will be many fans who question the integrity of the league."

Most of the discussion, however, centered on changes to instant replay. "Replay should not be a part of a team's strategy," wrote Shanerator. And ultimately, wrote brianinindy, it shouldn't be up to coaches to start the process: "Is it really the coach's job to oversee officiating and make sure it is done right? I think that's one of the biggest flaws."

Instead, a frequent suggestion was to pull aspects of the NCAA replay system, where booth officials buzz referees if they are reviewing a play, and even the NHL -- where a centrally-located official watches television feeds from league headquarters.

Writes Cranial_Cheddar: "I agree with those saying that they should go to a college style replay system where every play is reviewed. With how many close calls there are and the speed of the game at the pro-level this might result in a lot of reviews and draw out games more, but its better to have long, drawn out games where the officials got it right."

If nothing else, suggested tmonson78, the league should ensure an equal number of television cameras in each game to guarantee a fair chance to overturn poor calls: "How often is a review not overturned because there was not a good angle from which to view the play. To me, this is unacceptable."

My take? Yeesh. This is an issue that has been debated for generations and will continue forever. I'm not sure if we've just hit a bad stretch, or whether the NFL has reached a juncture where its game can no longer be officiated effectively using traditional means.

I think the NFL should strongly consider hiring some officials full time, particularly the referees. It hasn't been necessary in the past, and I'm not sure how busy they would be during the week. But it would be an appropriate response to a run that has put some awfully questionable instances on full display. Let's at least find out if it would help, regardless of the expense.

I also think there should be some level of streamlining the rules. There are only so many things that a human can keep in the front of his head at one time. When an official has to judge whether a special teams player is a yard off the long-snapper prior to a punt, on top of everything else happening on the field, we might be hitting oversaturation.

Finally, I'm in favor of finding ways to normalize replay, regardless of how big the TV audience is or whether you're in your home stadium. Replay shouldn't be a home-field advantage, and they shouldn't be limited by how many cameras a television executive assigns to the game. Each coach should have the same access to the same replays, across the board, every week.

We're just touching the surface of this issue. Perhaps in the offseason, when we have nothing else to discuss but the lockout, we'll hit it again in more detail.

In many ways, "Have at It" this week was about personal values. What's more important when it comes to gauging a player's comeback? Current level of play? The gap between pre- and post-comeback performance? Importance to the team? The severity of injury?

Your opinion on those questions largely drove our debate on the comebacks of two NFC North middle linebackers, Brian Urlacher (Chicago Bears) and E.J. Henderson (Minnesota Vikings).

Urlacher has returned after dislocating his right wrist in Sept. 2009. Henderson fractured his left femur in a gruesome December collision, and original projections called for 9-12 months of rehabilitation. With a titanium rod providing permanent stability in his leg, Henderson was back on the field during a June minicamp and was cleared for full practice by the end of July.

Regardless of its speed, Kirbyster197123 called Henderson's return "nothing short of a miracle." Gabehart1979 was among those who used the severity-of-injury argument: "Henderson is coming back from a horrific break in his leg. His recovery was phenomenal in and of itself. The fact that he's putting up these numbers, let alone playing, is very impressive."

While that may be true, several of you wrote the Bears' defensive improvement this season puts Urlacher's impact in greater relief than Henderson's. Wrote JBiu14:

"E.J. Henderson's injury was more gruesome than Urlacher's. Both of their numbers are similar. However, Urlacher means everything to the Bears. With the Vikes you could argue that Adrian Peterson, Randy Moss [and] Jared Allen all play bigger roles than Henderson. For Chicago to be a playoff team, Urlacher needs to be dominant.

"The Tampa-2 scheme requires a very, very special talent at middle line backer and without that piece in place, the defense is a mess. Last year the defense gave up 40+ points to the Bengals and Cardinals. When was the last time the Bears gave up more than 40 points in a game, let alone twice? Their defense had never played so poorly during the Urlacher/Lovie Smith era.

"The Icing on the Cake: Urlacher had more pressure. He has been the face of the franchise for the last ten years. Chicago fans and the media clings to star linebackers the way most other teams cling to star quarterbacks and wide receivers."

Urlacher appeared on the downside of his career pre-injury, wrote Realfootballisplayedongrass, but is now "flying around the field and making big plays in every game."

Added LambeauOrWrigley: "Stats-wise Henderson is winning this battle so far but make no mistake about it, based off what I have seen, the Bears minus Urlacher are toothless in the front while Vikings minus Henderson are still sound. For his respective team, Urlacher is a greater value by far. Add to that, Urlacher is simply a man possessed. I expected him to slow down but he tracks down everyone and has come back to be the tackling machine."

But those details, wrote daviddonze, shouldn't cloud the bigger picture. Henderson's path to playing at a high level was much more difficult than Urlacher's: "That was the kind of injury that would make many not even think about coming back, and he not only recovered, but came back just as strong. Hands down Henderson."

My take? This was a difficult question because we have two players who have returned from serious injuries to play at a high level. You hate to devalue what either has done.

But here's why I'm going with Henderson. About six weeks after the injury, I saw Henderson riding a scooter to the center of the Vikings' indoor practice field so he could participate in the post-workout call-up. It was the kind of scooter you see provided by grocery stores for the elderly or disabled.

As the thing puttered along, I looked at Henderson's face. He didn't appear embarrassed or depressed. He looked angry. And it's clear he channeled that anger to re-write the book on recovering from a fractured femur. When I saw him grab the second of his two interceptions last Sunday against the Dallas Cowboys, I thought about him getting around in a scooter just 10 months ago.

Please don't construe this as a slight of Urlacher. He's playing his best football in years. But I don't think his journey to this point can surpass Henderson's.

Tuesday's SportsNation chat was winding down when Madhu volunteered a savvy "Have at It" topic:

Madhu (South Windsor)

Urlacher or Henderson for Comeback Player of the Year?

Kevin Seifert (2:52 PM)

Ohhhh. I like that. Check back on the blog tomorrow.

So let's do this. Two of the NFC North's middle linebackers have returned from season-ending injuries to play at a high level and propel their teams to top-10 defensive rankings. A dislocated wrist cost the Chicago Bears' Brian Urlacher 15 games last season, while the Minnesota Vikings' E.J. Henderson suffered a fractured femur last December.

Both have returned at a high level in 2010. Urlacher leads the Bears' eighth-ranked defense with 51 tackles. Henderson, meanwhile, has 51 tackles for the Vikings' fifth-ranked defense. He also set up 10 points in Sunday's 24-21 victory over the Dallas Cowboys with a pair of interceptions.

As you consider this question, it's fair to take into account any number of factors. Among them:

• The most obvious is each player's performance this season, which I've sketched in the chart accompanying this post.
• That performance relative to each player's career curve. You could make an argument that Urlacher is playing his best football in several years.
• The severity of the injury. It should be pointed out that Henderson is playing with a titanium rod in his leg and was originally projected to need up to a year of recovery time.
• Each player's value relative to his team's depth chart. Where would the Bears be without Urlacher? Do the Vikings have anyone who could fill in for Henderson?

Hopefully we can make it through this debate without diminishing either player's accomplishments. As always, give me your thoughts in the comments section below. I'll publish a representative sample, along with my own take, by the end of the week. Have at It.

Nothing matters without context, which I suppose is another way of saying that everything is relative. As you debated this week's "Have at It" topic on the Chicago Bears' 4-1 record, many of you landed with nbetweennownthen: "Find me one NFC team that is 'for real.' Then I'll compare them to the Bears. Since that doesn't exist right now, yes, they are for real."

Regardless of how it's happened, four wins in five games means the Bears have produced better bottom-line results than all but one team in the NFC. Daabrs1 noted the Bears are 4-1 without playing a great game yet, with a new offensive coordinator and with their offensive line in constant flux.

Throughout their offensive struggles, wrote jmrushton, the Bears' defense has proved good enough to keep them in any game. Jmrushton: "Their special teams are always good to astounding. If the offense gets better, and there's no reason to think that with a brand new system and coaching staff that it won't, yes, the Bears are a contender."

If the offense can settle down, wrote abeeson20, the Bears would be "teetering on being dominant."

Not everyone was ready to jump aboard the Bears bandwagon. Classy_e was one: "Their offense is underwhelming, which I think is well illustrated by their 3rd down conversion percentage. Also, they have beaten only one team with more than one win. The combined record of Bears opponents they have defeated is 5-14. Until the Bears either start dominating these sub-par teams 2008 Patriots style, or defeat good teams, I cannot believe they are for real."

YouspellgodMARK is nervous about the number of unsettled positions the Bears are dealing with. It's nice that they were able to win under those circumstances. But the bottom line, according to youspellgodMARK, is that Chicago:

A) still hasn't settled on a starting D-line
B) is still waiting for a rookie to get healthy and possibly become a starting safety
C) is trying to figure out what the proper run: pass balance is on offense (and it almost certainly won't be 50:50 for the Bears this year)
D) still hasn't settled on a starting O-line

My take? I think it's fair to at least debate the long-term merits of a team that won one game because of an arcane NFL rule, another when its opponent committed 18 penalties and a third despite four interceptions by its starting quarterback. There's nothing wrong with using those facts to take a closer look.

But when we do that, I think we see a team that has already created an identity for itself. The Bears' defense has displayed enough consistency to suggest it will be a strong, if not dominant, force all season. That evidence alone is enough to suggest the Bears have some staying power.

Since we started this blog, I've never had much luck predicting the Bears. I thought they would be down in 2008, elite in 2009 and terrible this season. Anything I say about their future should be considered accordingly.

So I'll put it this way: Of the four NFC North teams, the Bears have the clearest path to grabbing permanent control of the division. With two home games and a matchup with the Buffalo Bills on their horizon, it's reasonable to think the Bears will be 6-2 or 7-1 by the midpoint of the season. That seems pretty real to me.

The majority of questions I'm getting these days focus on three topics:

1. "Did he do it?"
2. "Why are NFL players allowed to head-butt Aaron Rodgers?"
3. "Are the Chicago Bears for real?"

On the first question: I don't know. On the second: We'll get to that later this week. That leaves the third for "Have at It."

The facts are clear. The Bears are one of a pair of 4-1 teams in the NFC. Their defense has been dominant and their special teams good enough to rank No. 7 overall in Football Outsiders' weekly evaluations. The Green Bay Packers' injury problems, and the combined 2-7 start by the Minnesota Vikings and Detroit Lions, have given the Bears early control of the NFC North.

They've had some ugly wins and a brutal defeat, however. It's fair to at least debate whether those circumstances suggest a looming collapse, or whether it means this team has demonstrated an ability to win in imperfect environments.

I've provided a snapshot of the context of their offensive and defensive performances relative to the entire NFL. The numbers in the chart speak for themselves, I think.

I know we debated a similar topic last month, but added evidence suggests a revision and update. As always, give me your thoughts in the comment section below. I'll publish a representative sample of your thoughts, along with my own, by the end of the week. Have at It.