Jamarcuss Russell

q: Last night I'm looking over the final stats from Favre-a-palooza and I notice that Sidney Rice went 0-1 with zero yards passing, but had a QB rating of 39.6. JaMarcus Russell's QB rating for the year is 42.4!!!! Do you find this as hilarious and embarrassing as I do? A WR that throws one pass that goes for an incompletion almost has a higher QB rating than the Raiders' starting quarterback and the No. 1 overall pick three years ago.
-- Jason, New Port Richey, Fla.



Q: FYI, while playing beer pong, if you throw it too far and completely miss the table, it is now called a "JaMarcus Russell."
-- John, Fairfax, Wash.



Q: As JaMarcus Russell's QB rating draws closer and closer to 0.0, shouldn't statisticians change the QB rating system just for him? I was thinking it would go something like this: Once a quarterback's rating drops below zero, he enters "the Russell zone". This rating is based on stats such as yards off target per pass, attempts to the wrong team and number of broken jaws in coaching staff.
-- Bryan, Manhattan



SG: As you can tell, we had a three-way tie for the "JaMarcus Russell Historically Sucks" E-Mail of the Week. By the way, the "historically (blank)" trend has become one of my favorite media trends this year, and I'd like to think I played a small role in it. It's a subtle but effective way to completely exaggerate something. Someone can either suck or historically suck. A team can be great, or it can be historically great. What's weird is that there is no in-between phrase like "generationally (blank)." And there should be. In fact, I now can't decide whether Russell generationally sucks or historically sucks. Maybe we need a few more weeks.