OK. Last night was pretty painful. Skelton came out first and had a hard time moving the ball. His first pass was an INT- a wobbly overthrow. He had a few dropped passes that stopped 2 of his 5 drives. In all, Skelton got 5 drives to work with and managed a measly 3 points. Kolb came in relief and also got 5 drives. He looked good at times, connecting with Fitz on several plays and moved the ball well, including his first TD pass of the season. But BAD Kolb also showed up, yielding 3 sacks, 2 INTs. Actually, he should be credited for throwing 2 TD passes, except for some reason it doesn't count if you throw a TD for the other team.

For the season, Skelton looked better or marginally better for the first 3 games, and Kolb looked better/marginally better last night. Or did they? We could argue forever. But what do we make of this? How will we ever pick a QB? Maybe the problem isn't deciding who is better- maybe we should be deciding who is not worst. Does that seem confusing? Let me give you an example ( a little math ahead).

Let's say you are Kenny the Drug dealer. You are paid well to distribute 100 vials of crack. Last night, someone broke in to your apartment while you were wasted and stole some of the vials of crack. Fat Tony, your boss, tells you he is going to relieve you of an equal percentage of your fingers as he is missing of his product. He counts you have 84 vials of crack. How many fingers do you lose? The answer is 1-(84/100). That's right, you, Kenny, will lose your pinky finger and half of your ring finger (hopefully on your non-crack-distributing hand). The point is, it's what you DON'T have that's important. If you fail to see any relevance to the Cardinals QB situation it is that both situations really suck.

Luckily, there already IS a way to do this, because someone was bored enough to put it together, and it can be seen here. There Bad Quarterback League fantasy numbers are geared to seeing who sucks the most. All we need to do is see who has the lowest score! How simple!

The only caveat is that QBs get points for low yardage. Since neither QB played a full game it is unfair to penalize them for that, so we will extrapolate yardage as a percentage of the total time they were in the game (for example, if Skelton played the first half and threw for 50 yards, we will extrapolate to 100 yards for the game). All other points remain the same. By these rules:

In last nights game:

Skelton:

4/10 for 41 yards- 5 drives(20.5 min- 121 yards)= - 5 PTS completion rate, 12 PTS for yards

no passes of > 25 yards (had a 22 yard completion) - 5 PTS

1 Sack- no points- removed from scoring

1 INT- 5 PTS

0TD- 10 PTS

Kolb:

17/22 for 156 yards- 5 drives, 20 min (extr to450 yrds!)- (-12) PTS,

2 sacks (stat sheet says 2, but I swear he was sacked back-to-back on his first drive, and then again in the 3rd Qtr)- 0 PTS, removed form scoring

2 INT- 10 PTS

1 pick 6- 25 PTS

1 TD - 0 PTS

There you have it. Skelton sucked for 37 points, while Kolb sucked for 23 points.

This is irrefutable proof that, in fact, Kolb sucked less than Skelton last night, and thus won the night. All we need to do now is compute the suck factor for each week, and decide who our least sucky QB is, and thus, our starter.

Enjoy.