NFL 2008 - Week One

[Jaime L]

[quote name='Kalbear' post='1503191' date='Sep 2 2008, 12.14']For those geeks out there, here's a really nice [url="http://www.footballoutsiders.com/2008/09/02/ramblings/stat-analysis/6505/"]analysis of passer rating[/url] and why it's a bit odd as a way to gauge QBs.[/quote]

Yeah, read that. Think it's right on. It's why west coast passers often end up with great QB ratings even as their offense keeps stalling due to only making short completions.

Also recently read FO's excoriation of the NFL draft value chart, the one that assigns each pick a certain number of points to compare the value of, say, a first rounder, against two second round picks. Shows, nicely, how absurd it is that according to this chart, the first pick overall is [i]twice[/i] as valuable as the #6 pick overall. Because as David Carr, Alex Smith and JaMarcus Russell have shown us, clearly that's the case.

It's amazing to me teams use such imprecise metrics on so many of these kinda things. Or that if teams use their own metrics, why the official ones aren't better. They're nonsensical at best, thoroughly misleading at worse and teams that tend to value things more correctly (ie: The Pats) have a huge competitive edge over those who do not.

[quote name='Rockroi' post='1503221' date='Sep 2 2008, 12.37']I think having that almost bizarre maximum (153.2?) serves to show people how out of whack the rating is.[/quote]

158.3. And college's passer ratings top out at a different number, over 200 IIRC. One of the more bizarre measures in sports.

[Ser Paladin]

[quote name='Bronn Stone' post='1503283' date='Sep 2 2008, 14.21']Can't argue with any team's specific pick, but by my count, you do have the NFL as four games under .500 over the course of the season. :P[/quote]
I did a check before I posted, and thought I was over by 4, and cut some Ws out. Apparently I was dead-on with my first draft, and "corrected" myself. been one of those days

[Jaime L]

[quote]Thanks for reminding me.

Wait, no. No thanks at all. I need to go cry in the corner now.

Gonna be a long season, I fear.[/quote]

Sorry, Mack. I guess Troy Smith must be injured too?

Shocking to see a DI-AA starting the very first game of his pro career.

[quote name='Ser Paladin' post='1503261' date='Sep 2 2008, 13.04']Hey, just 2 days til the season starts. Barely enough time to put together my occassionally hurtful (sorry Jaime) pre-season predictions for the NFL:

[u]NFC East:[/u]
Cowboys 13-3. I just threw up a little in my mouth.
Eagles 10-6, fighting for a playoff berth, maybe.
Giants 10-6, not as explosive as last year, but not bad
Redskins 6-10, again, sorry Jaime.[/quote]

No worries. I wouldn't be surprised at all if the Redskins finished 6-10 this year. And if I had to pick the shakiest team in the NFC East, I'd almost certainly pick us. But last year they more than doubled your projected win total, so I still got silver linings. :P

[quote name='Bronn Stone' post='1503283' date='Sep 2 2008, 13.21']Can't argue with any team's specific pick, but by my count, you do have the NFL as four games under .500 over the course of the season. :P[/quote]

It's going to be a rough year for the NFL. The league really needs to rebuild. :P

[Mack Kilimaro]

[quote name='Jaime L' post='1503302' date='Sep 2 2008, 14.33']Sorry, Mack. I guess Troy Smith must be injured too?

Shocking to see a DI-AA starting the very first game of his pro career.[/quote]

It was fate. Kyle Boller's shoulder is a wreck (not that I would have felt any better with him starting), Troy Smith contracted tonsilitis at like the worst possible moment and he's lost 20 pounds in the last two weeks and so is in no football shape. Him, I would like to have seen just to see what he's got.

Instead, apparently we are going to bring on board Joey Harrington to be the "veteran backup".

Yeah. Long year.

[BLU-RAY]

Playoff predictions? I guess:

AFC:
New England Patriots (East)
Indianapolis Colts (South)
San Diego Chargers (West)
Pittsburgh Steelers (North)
Jacksonville Jaguars (WC)
Buffalo Bills (WC)

n.b.: I don't know if I like the Colts over the Jags this season, with Manning coming back from surgery... but the Jags just had an OLineman get shot up (he's in critical condition now, hopefully he'll be OK), and I don't know how good at handling distractions Jack del Rio is. Or the rest of the team, really. So we'll see.

NFC:
Dallas Cowboys (East)
New Orleans Saints (South)
Arizona Cardinals (West)
Green Bay Packers (North)
Carolina Panthers (WC)
New York Giants (WC)

I think Green Bay will be fine without Favre... I'm only picking the Cardinals because, well, they have to play up to their talent level eventually, right? Right?

[Rockroi]

NFC East:
*Cowboys On paper, the most talented team in football. And as we know, that distinction has helped the Chargers win exactly 0 Superbowls.
*Giants- I think they falter, but Ihave enough to make the playoffs.
Eagles- I just don’t see McNabb bouncing back.
Redskins- If only there was no salary cap…

NFC South:
*Panthers – I always predict them to win the South. Why stop now?
Bucs – I think they continue to play uninspired, above-average ball.
Saints- I am no longer buying what they are selling.
Falcons – Don’t be surprised if they are better than any of us think and are only “terrible”

NFC North:
*Packers- There is nothing I am looking at that gets me to think they cannot repeat the magic of last season. Very young, very hungry, very focused.
*Vikings – If they had a Qb I’d rank them #1. If he comes around, its all up-side.
Lions – Look, they will suck, they’ll finish last, but I think when their receivers and Kitna are all on the field… they are a great team.
Bears – Look, they will suck, they’ll finish last, but I think when their receivers and Grossman/Orton/a blind man with arthritis are all on the field … they could help Detroit stay out of the cellar.

NFC West:
*Seahawks- By default
Cardinals- Can one be a default second-place finisher?
Niners – Can any team be as bad as everyone says? I say no.
Rams- My new theory is that they did that whole thing with Jackson just to take people’s minds off of how horrible they are.

AFC East:
*Patriots- Somebody tell me I’m wrong and they will still be dominant. I see many 28-24 games in their future.
Buffalo- Seriously, THIS is the year (see 2007, 2006 and 2005 when I said much the same thing).
Jets – They remember Unitas in that Chargers uniform FOR A REASON!
Dolphins- They’ll Quintuple their wins from last season and still suck.

AFC South:
*Colts: Its all a myth. They are STILL better than the others. .
*Titans: All their QB needs to be is “not horrible” and they make the playoffs.
*Jaguars: They never won a game last season after trailing by 12. I see a drop-off.
Texans: They could shock us, but this division is too tough.

AFC North:
*Steelers: Their season, their team, much better than we are thinking.
Browns- They plummet.
Bengals- The only thing to like about the Bengals is that …
Ravens- … they are not the Ravens.

AFC West:
*Chargers – Their season starts the day Merriman decides his is over.
Broncos – The most “meh” team in the NFL.
Raiders- Better than they have been.
Chiefs- I see nothing to like about the Chiefs.

[Andrik the Unsmiling]

well, I really need to kill some time, so allow me to post my own predictions for the 2008 season.

* indicates playoff team

Disclaimer: I didn't go through the NFL schedule game by game to come up with these win totals, so the exact combination may be impossible. I did, however, make sure that the total W-L record for the League added up to .500.

[b]AFC East[/b]
1) New England Patriots* -- 14-2 -- No brainer. Still probably the best team in football. 2 losses are factored in because I doubt they stay as healthy as they did last year.
2) Buffalo Bills -- 8-8 -- I like the Bills. Not enough to put them in the playoffs, particularly given Jason Peters' potentially disastrous holdout, but I still think they'll take another big step forward this season.
3) New York JETS -- 7-9 -- Brett or no Brett, I still think 2006 was somewhat of a mirage. I'm not buying the hype.
4) Miami Dolphins -- 4-12 -- The 'Phins have a long way to go. Time will tell if Bill Parcells is able to resurrect yet another franchise, but it won't tell this season.


[b]AFC North[/b]
1) Pittsburgh Steelers* -- 11-5 -- I love the offensive skill positions and think the defense should be solid. The OL worries me, but not enough to keep them out of first place in the division.
2) Cleveland Browns* -- 10-6 -- I think they're a slightly better team than last year's incarnation. Let's see if the D can take the next step. Concern over whether Jamal Lewis can run like he did last season tempers my enthusiasm somewhat.
3) Baltimore Ravens -- 6-10 -- Harbaugh will turn out to be a very good coach for Baltimore, I think. Give him a couple of years and they'll be back in the hunt.
4) Cincinnati Bengals -- 3-13 -- This team is going to be the true disaster of 2008, IMO. The defense will be downright abysmal. No offense, Mexal, hope I'm wrong for your sake.


[b]AFC South[/b]
1) Jacksonville Jaguars* -- 11-5 -- Could this be the year they overtake the Colts to capture the division title? I say yes. Losing Stroud hurts some, but some of those DEs they added should help offset that.
2) Indianapolis Colts* -- 10-6 -- Injuries abound on the OL, and how healthy is Peyton? There are some chinks in the armor, but not enough to keep them out of the postseason.
3) Houston Texans -- 8-8 -- Each passing year it gets funnier and funnier how thoroughly the Texans were ripped for passing on Reggie Bush and Vince Young to select Mario Williams.
4) Tennessee Titans -- 7-9 -- Tough division, and the Titans are lacking somewhat at the offensive skill positions. Watch out for rookie RB Chris Henry, though.


[b]AFC West[/b]
1) San Diego Chargers* -- 13-3 -- Patriots Lite. Great team, weak division, plenty of wins.
t2) Oakland Raiders -- 7-9 -- More talent than many give them credit for, and I think Lane Kiffin actually has a clue. If they're able to pass the ball at all, I think this is a reasonable estimate. That might be asking too much though.
t2) Denver Broncos -- 7-9 -- I look at this team and it just seems too thin on the depth chart at too many positions.
4) Kansas City Chiefs -- 5-11 -- Loved their draft, and players like Dorsey and Albert will make an impact early. The Chiefs should be commended for starting the rebuilding process at the foundation. But they still have a long way to go.


[b]NFC East[/b]
1) Dallas Cowboys* -- 12-4 -- The offense gets the hype. The defense will get them wins.
2) Washington Redskins* -- 10-6 -- What can I say? I like Zorny. This whole division after the Cowboys is a real muddle. Lots of talented teams without enough wins to go around.
3) New York Giants* -- 9-7 -- Super Bowl Champs barely squeeze into the playoffs the following season. But I see this as more reloading than rebuilding. They'll be back in a big way (with Osi) in '09.
4) Philadelphia Eagles -- 8-8 -- I really, really want to put them higher. Sooner or later Donovan has to stay healthy for an entire season, right? Right?


[b]NFC North[/b]
1) Green Bay Packers* -- 10-6 -- Aaron Rodgers: he's not Brett Favre. He's actually careful with the football.
2) Minnesota Vikings -- 8-8 -- Strong team, but losing McKinnie hurts, and I'm still not at all sold on Tavaris and the passing O.
3) Chicago Bears -- 6-10 -- Looks like rough times are in store once again for the Chicago faithful. I have no idea why this team wouldn't take a stab at Chad Henne (or similar) in the draft.
4) Detroit Lions -- 5-11 -- Calvin Johnson has a breakout season. Lions still suck.


[b]NFC South[/b]
1) New Orleans Saints* -- 10-6 -- Jonathan Vilma could really help this defense, IMO. And I like how Shockey fits into this offense. Get Bush in the slot, Shockey at TE, Deuce in the backfield and Colston out wide... how could that not give opposing defenses trouble?
t2) Carolina Panthers -- 7-9 -- I like the offseason they've had (well, prior to Steve Smith brawling with Lucas). Another team that needs a QB to take the next step
t2) Tampa Bay Buccaneers -- 7-9 -- With the Saints back atop the division, the Bucs will fall some. Could this be Gruden's last year in Tampa?
4) Atlanta Falcons -- 3-13 -- I have to figure the biggest "God, what were we thinking?" moment in recent NFL history was when the Falcons traded Matt Schaub only to watch the Vick saga unfold just a few months later. With Schaub in the fold, maybe they'd be reloading instead of rebuilding. As it is, there's a long road ahead of the Falcons before they're competitive again.


[b]NFC West[/b]
1) Seattle Seahawks* --10-6 -- I still REALLY don't think this team is very good. I just find it hard to believe anyone else in the division is better. Figure 4-5 wins against NFC West foes, and with one of the biggest home field advantages in the game I don't see how they miss the playoffs.
2) San Francisco 49ers -- 8-8 -- Every time I think I'm out, they pull me back in. The JTO Show may not offer much, but it's better than no hope at all. And really, if you take the QB position out of consideration, SF is probably the most talented team in the division at this point. The problem is, you can't take the QB position out of consideration.
3) Arizona Cardinals -- 7-9 -- Do I think Whisenhunt and Grimm are making progress? Sure. Do I buy that this is the year? Heck no.
4) St. Louis Rams -- 5-11 -- People just don't seem to get that the Rams haven't been bitten overly harshly by the injury bug in recent years-- they just have a lot of players who are naturally prone to injury, or so it seems to me. I don't see that changing in '08. And even if it did, the Defense still has a LONG way to go. Outside of Witherspoon and Atogwe, I see nothing to get excited about at all in the back 7, and while the front four has improved over the past two years it's going to take a player like Chris long a little while to adjust to the NFL (frankly, I was thrilled they passed on Dorsey).

[Rockroi]

[quote]The problem with that is that there are an infinite number of reasons that a ball may be intercepted. Not all of them are the QBs fault.... so its important to note that a QB rating is NOT a rating for an individual but rather the rating of that QB for that team.[/quote]

At the same time (and I am not saying you are wrong), a QB would get [i]credit [/i]for a pass wherein the receiver had a ton of YAK and maybe even broke a tackle or two. So, yes, while they may not get the full "benefit of the doubt" when it comes to passes, they also may be the beneficiary of a few things outside their control as well.

[quote]I don't think a more intuitive system is correct either, as people's intuitions on what works in football are just flat-out wrong. "Establish the run" is one of those where everyone thinks that it should be done - but statistically, teams that establish the run do no better than those that establish the pass, and teams that run for small gains early do not run better as the game goes on.[/quote]

That’s not what I meant by “intuitive.” What I meant was that the statistical formulation is more intuitive; ie- when its explained to me, it makes sense. I think artificially capping categories, awarding arbitrary yardages to certain stats, and not including other meaningful statistics is NOT intuitive. When I say “intuitive” I mean that if the method was explained to me I could 1) follow it and 2) it would make sense once fully explained. In my opinion, capping numbers and arbitrarily awarding yardage is counter-intuitive. Intuitive is NOT the same thing as "common knowledge" or "conventional wisdom."

[Bronn Stone]

[quote name='Andrik the Unsmiling' post='1503414' date='Sep 2 2008, 12.55'][b]AFC West[/b]
1) San Diego Chargers* -- 13-3 -- Patriots Lite. Great team, weak division, plenty of wins.
t2) Oakland Raiders -- 7-9 -- More talent than many give them credit for, and I think Lane Kiffin actually has a clue. If they're able to pass the ball at all, I think this is a reasonable estimate. That might be asking too much though.
t2) Denver Broncos -- 7-9 -- I look at this team and it just seems too thin on the depth chart at too many positions.
4) Kansas City Chiefs -- 5-11 -- Loved their draft, and players like Dorsey and Albert will make an impact early. The Chiefs should be commended for starting the rebuilding process at the foundation. But they still have a long way to go.[/quote]

Kiffin may have a clue, just like Tarkin might have been a great Grand Moff, but Palpatine isn't gonna let either of them make a decision that matters.

[the silent speaker]

Watch this space for a prediction based on a SCIENTIFIC PRINCIPLE with GUARANTEED RESULTS.

Edit: the prophecies are ready. They buy and sell some surprising teams, including Denver, Detroit and Arizona -- those teams they buy HARD. I actually modified those predictions [i]down[/i] on the principle of never predicting anyone to go 16-0 or 0-16. (I had three winless teams; there were two exciting upsets of unbeaten teams in Week 17 and one in Week 16.) div/WC means it falls to tiebreakers that I didn't compute and may not even be computable this early.

[b]NFC East:[/b]

NYG 14-2 (div)
DAL 12-4 (WC)
PHI 9-7
WAS 6-10

[b]NFC North:[/b]

GB 14-2 (div/WC)
DET 14-2 (div/WC) (not a typo)
CHI 3-13
MIN 3-13

[b]NFC South:[/b]

CAR 10-6 (div)
TAM 8-8
NO 7-9
ATL 3-13

[b]NFC West:[/b]

ARI 14-2 (div) (yes, ARI)
SEA 10-6
STL 3-13
SF 2-14

[b]AFC East:[/b]

NE 13-3 (div)
NYJ 9-7
BUF 6-10
MIA 4-12

[b]AFC North:[/b]

PIT 8-8 (div)
CLE 7-9
CIN 3-13
BAL 3-13

[b]AFC South:[/b]

IND 12-4
TEN 11-5
JAX 10-6
HOU 6-10

[b]AFC West:[/b]

SD 14-2 (div/WC)
DEN 14-2 (div/WC) (yes, really)
OAK 3-13
KC 2-14

[b]EDIT:[/b] My table of games apparently has errors in it. These figures subject to change. I apologize for any inconvenience.

(Note 1: Principle is scientific in that when given the input of a suitable data set, it creates a testable hypothesis.)
(Note 2: Principle is guaranteed to produce results. Results are not themselves guaranteed to be accurate.)

[Andrik the Unsmiling]

[quote name='Bronn Stone' post='1503494' date='Sep 2 2008, 13.59']Kiffin may have a clue, just like Tarkin might have been a great Grand Moff, but Palpatine isn't gonna let either of them make a decision that matters.[/quote]

Haha, yeah that might have been a stretch. But here's the fantastic part-- Kiffin having a clue means he knows he'll have to run the ball, and Al being Al, likes that idea. Of course, he'll still fire Kiffin after the season ends, so in the long run it won't help anybody, but Lane will land on his feet. ;)

[Lord O' Bones]

[quote name='Andrik the Unsmiling' post='1503736' date='Sep 2 2008, 16.45']Haha, yeah that might have been a stretch.[/quote]
Oh, I don't know. The people of Alderaan might disagree, had they the ability.

[Jaime L]

Love this story from PFT:

[quote]RUDI’S CRAZY DAY IN DETROIT
Posted by Mike Florio on September 2, 2008, 9:17 p.m.

A strange thing happened to running back Rudi Johnson when he visited with the Detroit Lions on Monday.

Someone stole his stuff.

Seriously.

Specifically, and as we’re told by a reliable source (i.e., not the person who told Mort that Joey Harrington had agreed to terms with the Ravens on Monday, or the person who told John Clayton that Todd Bouman had agreed to terms with the Ravens on Tuesday), Johnson left his bags outside CEO Matt Millen’s office while he met with team officials and, ultimately, worked out a deal with the team.

So when Johnson came back to get his bags, they were nowhere to be found. Johnson and Millen were stumped.

Enter the eye in the sky.

The team checked the videotapes generated by the team’s in-house surveillance system, and they quickly identified the culprit.

[b]So who might it have been? None other than Tatum Bell, who lost his gig with the Lions after Rudi arrived.[/b]

Per the source, Bell took the bags to the house of a female acquaintance. When confronted on the matter, Bell offered up some cockamamie story that he thought the bags belonged to someone he knew. The girl, however, said that she hadn’t seen Bell in several months and he showed up out of the blue and asked her to keep the bags for a while.

Johnson has retrieved the bags, and it’s our understanding that charges won’t be pressed.

Tatum apparently didn’t know that he was being monitored.[/quote]

Take that Matt Millen and Rudi Johnson! You mess with the bull, you get the horns.

[Space Bandito]

You have got to be kidding me . . . The Lions are signing Rudi Johnson?! :thumbsup:

[▲Jim▲]

[quote name='the silent speaker' post='1503681' date='Sep 2 2008, 16.02']Watch this space for a prediction based on a SCIENTIFIC PRINCIPLE with GUARANTEED RESULTS.

Edit: the prophecies are ready. They buy and sell some surprising teams, including Denver, Detroit and Arizona -- those teams they buy HARD. I actually modified those predictions [i]down[/i] on the principle of never predicting anyone to go 16-0 or 0-16. (I had three winless teams; there were two exciting upsets of unbeaten teams in Week 17 and one in Week 16.) div/WC means it falls to tiebreakers that I didn't compute and may not even be computable this early.

[b]NFC East:[/b]

NYG 14-2 (div)
DAL 12-4 (WC)
PHI 9-7
WAS 6-10

[b]NFC North:[/b]

GB 14-2 (div/WC)
DET 14-2 (div/WC) (not a typo)
CHI 3-13
MIN 3-13

[b]NFC South:[/b]

CAR 10-6 (div)
TAM 8-8
NO 7-9
ATL 3-13

[b]NFC West:[/b]

ARI 14-2 (div) (yes, ARI)
SEA 10-6
STL 3-13
SF 2-14

[b]AFC East:[/b]

NE 13-3 (div)
NYJ 9-7
BUF 6-10
MIA 4-12

[b]AFC North:[/b]

PIT 8-8 (div)
CLE 7-9
CIN 3-13
BAL 3-13

[b]AFC South:[/b]

IND 12-4
TEN 11-5
JAX 10-6
HOU 6-10

[b]AFC West:[/b]

SD 14-2 (div/WC)
DEN 14-2 (div/WC) (yes, really)
OAK 3-13
KC 2-14

(Note 1: Principle is scientific in that when given the input of a suitable data set, it creates a testable hypothesis.)
(Note 2: Principle is guaranteed to produce results. Results are not themselves guaranteed to be accurate.)[/quote]
Giants, and Lions 14-2??? What are you smoking? I need some of it, and fast! I do hope this is a joke right?

[Week]

[quote name='Zaphyl' post='1504113' date='Sep 3 2008, 05.26']Giants, and Lions 14-2??? What are you smoking? I need some of it, and fast! I do hope this is a joke right?[/quote]
Mmm..I want some too.

[the silent speaker]

If I were guessing the Giants myself from scratch I would peg them in the neighborhood of 10-6 too, but the figures say what the figures say. I can show my work, and it comes out to 14-2 for all those teams (actually 15-1, but I had to correct for MIN, BAL and STL all going 0-16. Tarvaris Jackson is no Tom Brady but he can't possibly be 0-16 bad.)

Incidentally, I think I overcorrected. Could someone who can be bothered check my figures for parity? If it doesn't match, try deleting one win from the above three patsies since those teams' wins are all ad hoc impositions anyway.

[Jaime L]

[quote name='the silent speaker' post='1504642' date='Sep 3 2008, 12.45']If I were guessing the Giants myself from scratch I would peg them in the neighborhood of 10-6 too, but the figures say what the figures say. I can show my work, and it comes out to 14-2 for all those teams (actually 15-1, but I had to correct for MIN, BAL and STL all going 0-16. Tarvaris Jackson is no Tom Brady but he can't possibly be 0-16 bad.)

Incidentally, I think I overcorrected. Could someone who can be bothered check my figures for parity? If it doesn't match, try deleting one win from the above three patsies since those teams' wins are all ad hoc impositions anyway.[/quote]

Please share your methodology. You had me at SCIENTIFIC PRINCIPLE with GUARANTEED RESULTS.

Not sure how the system can figure that the Vikings should actually go 0-16, considering they went 8-8 last year and most projections have 'em as a top 5 team in the NFC. Was nice of you to overrule the projection, going ahead and giving them 3 wins, but still seems, I don't know, low.

[Week]

[quote name='Jaime L' post='1504673' date='Sep 3 2008, 14.14']Not sure how the system can figure that the Vikings should actually go 0-16, considering they went 8-8 last year and most projections have 'em as a top 5 team in the NFC. Was nice of you to overrule the projection, going ahead and giving them 3 wins, but still seems, I don't know, low.[/quote]
Right...I don't see how the Titans are going 11-5 in a tough division and the Vikes are going 3-13 in a fairly weak one. I see them as teams that are constructed in a fairly similar fashion. I'd give a slight edge in QB to the Titans (Young is far from consistent), big edge to the Vikes in RB (PJ), and then an edge to the Vikings in defense as well. Really, both teams need their defenses to function well to win (see: Titans without Haynesworth last year), both have inconsistent/young/mobile QBs, but the Vikings will be able to run the ball much more effectively (at least it seems that way). How does that all add up to fewer wins in a weaker division is beyond me.

Not to mention:
the Giants going 14-2 (the team that was 3-5 at home and lost their two best linemen).
Detroit and GB having better seasons while getting worse (Kitna is older...well...he's still Kitna too, so that's no good).
AZ at 14-2 with Kurt Warner (and Leinhart, sort of).
Den at 14-2 (what got better here??).

Ugh, the rest isn't quite as bad..but damn...cocaine...it's a hell of a drug.

[Bronn Stone]

I believe that those predictions will add three inches to my penis AND get me a share of money currently held by a disgruntled ex-member of the Nigerian government.