Three For One Tuesday

I have an article I have been sitting on for a few days that I want to write about desperately but there has always been something else to write about that takes precedent. The reason for the Wal-Mart-esque title is because there were three short articles that displayed the correct amount of idiocy for me to talk about them. Let's start off first with Peter King and his MMQB follow up, cleverly titled Monday Morning Quarterback-Tuesday. As AJ correctly predicted Peter did not include any mail about his "Brett Favre as an unemployed person" paragraph that he included in the column, where the reader was supposed to feel some sense of sympathy that Favre is now unemployed, even though he is clearly retired. Combining that with King's apparent cluelessness on what the bumper sticker that said, "This Is Our Year" meant, and I think it is safe to say Peter's status as the resident snob who complains about hotel shampoos is secure. Only someone who is completely not in touch with his readers could refer to Brett Favre as unemployed. This doesn't get mentioned but unfortunately we do get his opinion on other matters.

Well, there are three reasons why Taylor is a very good gamble -- and not even a significant gamble, because he's not going to cost much money -- for a contender that needs a back to carry the ball 200 times this fall:

Peter King has taken to pimping out Fred Taylor and I will give you one guess which team he thinks is smart enough to take Taylor. Here's a hint...it's the only smart team and they would be interested in Tim Tebow because they are so creative and genius-like. The Patriots.

It's a good thing he is not going to cost a lot of money, because he is a 33 year old quarterback with 2,400 career rushing attempts. Really though, how does Peter King know that Taylor won't cost a lot of money? His agent is Drew Rosenhaus, who is pretty famous for getting his clients good deals and I bet Taylor did not say he would be cheap.

I am sure he will take the veteran minimum though. That sounds like a Rosenhaus client. Then he will demand a trade or try to kill himself.

1. Taylor hasn't gotten too beaten up over the second half of his career, so he should be able to be the kind of role-playing back a contender could use.

I did this thing called "research" and it turns out Taylor actually has more carries 1,223 for the second half of his 11 year career than he had for the first half of his career, when he had 1,205 carries. So you could say Taylor has never been beaten up then. Part of the reason he did not get beaten up for the first half of his career is because he missed 24 games his first four years in the league. Who knew Taylor being injured all the time was actually a good thing? Now he is considered "not too beaten up."

Since turning 28 five years ago, he's been a part-time running back and he's averaged 210 carries a year over that span.

I love averages! Since 2005 Taylor has surpassed 200 carries only twice and he is now 33 years old.

2. He also averaged 4.7 yards-per-carry over that five-year stretch.

(These numbers are very wrong, feel free to mock me for them...Peter was right, though I stick with my crack about how women quote a price for something they want) More fun with numbers. Peter must have attended one of the cheaper private schools in Massachusetts because if you take Taylor's averages over the last five years (4.7, 4.1, 5.0, 5.4, 3.9) it actually comes to 4.62 ypc average. Last time I checked, which was fifth grade, you round down from there to 4.6. I am not saying Peter is wrong, I am saying he doesn't know how to round a number.

This is what women do with price tags at a store.

"It was only $99 dollars!"

(You look at the price tag and it says $99.99 and give up trying to explain to her you should round up)

"I'm ready for it. It's like my first shot at free-agency. I expect to go somewhere and run till my wheels fall off.''

Which, according to his career numbers, could be after 2 games or he could play the entire year.

I'll be surprised if Indianapolis, New England and Pittsburgh do not at least sniff around Taylor.

And why wouldn't they? They are the main three teams in the NFL that Peter knows a whole lot about.

Bill Belichick won Super Bowls with Antowain Smith and Corey Dillon, two backs in the twilight of their careers with something to prove, and he knows he can't trust Laurence Maroney to stay healthy. (I know he's got Sammy Morris, and I love Sammy Morris, but Taylor and Morris would be a pretty good 1-2 punch come December.)

(This sentence is supposed to be read like a hyper 14 year old girl) OMG! I love Sammy Morris too! I hope Peter doesn't get too excited thinking about Taylor in New England, he may not sign there, but they are a really smart team with a genius coach so they probably will get Taylor.

Steelers have a very good insurance policy in Mewelde Moore behind Willie Parker and Rashard Mendenhall, but Mike Tomlin loves the running game, and he loves productive veterans.

As I said earlier, Peter only knows the names of a few teams and the Steelers are one of them. Why would Taylor sign with the Steelers again since they have three other running backs? Why would the Steelers spend money on Taylor again since they have three good relatively young running backs? I hate to ask these questions, but I have to.

New Orleans, Arizona, Chicago and Green Bay should sniff too.

He just picked four teams out of a hat and included them to throw us off his trail.

"Peter, with the front-office shakeup and coaching staff changeover in Detroit, do you think Drew Stanton will get an opportunity to be the Lions' starting QB? I think it's rare that a team takes a QB in the second round of the NFL draft and doesn't give him at least a legitimate shot at the job.''

Now, unfortunately for Stanton, the Lions may have to make a decision on draft day that will trump him, but it doesn't mean he won't get meaningful snaps and a chance to show his stuff this summer.

I don't think the new Lions regime should be married to Stanton by any means, but as I said yesterday, I see no reason the Lions should choose a quarterback first in the draft. There are so many needs on that team I can't see how they would not benefit from trying to trade the pick (good luck with that) or taking a player that is not a quarterback. The Lions have to start over and I don't think the quarterback position is the best place to do it. Both the Ravens and the Falcons had some pieces in place when they drafted Flacco and Ryan, they were not completely starting over from scratch. The Lions are.

From Das, of Seattle: "I also believe Mike Vick will and probably should get another chance to play in the NFL. However, which team is going to face the scrutiny of its fan base by signing Vick? Maybe the Cowboys, since Jerry Jones seems to like wearing the "black hat"? What other teams would take on Vick's baggage and the circus-like atmosphere which would surely follow?"

I'll give you three: Oakland, Dallas and Washington. They all have owners with spines and owners who will view signing Vick in terms of how he can help the team and will worry about the consequences later.

What do those three organizations have in common? They all did not make the playoffs this year.

From Thad, of Dallas: "So, let me get this straight -- the Packers bend over backward for Brett's every whim during his tenure (not attending the offseason program, dealing with the annual retirement speculation, and so on) and decide to give the heir apparent a shot at winning the job. Brett can't stand the competition (after RETIRING) so he throws a tantrum and whines his way out of Packer-land to the J-E-T-S because they're the only team willing to take the prima donna. But somehow it's all the Pack's fault and Crybaby Brett wants to "stick it" to Ted Thompson? I don't get why people look up to and continue to glorify this whiny, pompous guy. He should be eternally grateful for the way the Packers and Wisconsin treated him during his career. What a pain. The Packer fans should be grateful he's gone.''

Hey, that's how I feel too!

Many are, judging from the mail I've gotten in the past 24 hours.

Way to take a stance and neither agree nor disagree Peter, that way you keep everyone happy and get invited to Brett's house for dinner. Poor unemployed and hated Brett.

Steve, of San Francisco: It seems as if it is OK for athletes to lie and blame, but when the truth is told, it is always someone else who is in the wrong. Man-up A-Rod and all the other steroid abusers, it is time to admit to wrong-doing and hopefully then, we can start believing in our professional athletes again!''

Yeah, Selena, way to invade A-Rod's privacy!

At least that is what Gregg Doyel thinks.

The biggest victim of the Alex Rodriguez debacle is Alex Rodriguez himself.

He has ruined his legacy as potentially the greatest hitter of all time and now he is going to be lumped in with the other steroid users, like he deserves to be. Alex screwed Alex over. I don't see him as a victim.

Be mad at the baseball union, and at baseball itself. And at the U.S. government. Be mad at all of them, and hope that Alex Rodriguez doesn't decide to get litigious.

I remember from my one year in law school, there was a case where a guy tried to sue himself and it turns out he can't do that. So hopefully A-Rod is not looking to sue Alex Rodriguez. Though honestly, if I were a judge and A-Rod wanted to sue Alex Rodriguez for dating old ass Madonna, I would allow him standing to bring this case to trial. A-Rod is a millionaire and lives in New York City and the best woman he can find to date is Madonna...and it is not 1987? He slandered himself enough in my mind just doing that. If I were A-Rod, Madonna would be ranked 1,909,940 among women that I would want to date if I were single.

Because if he does, if A-Rod sues the people and parties that made him the biggest victim of his own steroid scandal, he will own baseball. He will own the players association. And considering how the government also is to blame, he might just own that as well.

I have a better idea. A steel cage match between Obama and A-Rod for control of the government. Considering how much the media hates A-Rod and loves Obama, I have to say it would be 97%-3% rooting against A-Rod amongst the media.

But using steroids to become a better ballplayer is wrong, and A-Rod was wrong. He cheated the game and the record book.

(Me desperately searching around the attic I am in right now, looking for new information about A-Rod...I give up and allow Gregg to rehash the entire saga to me again.)

Seriously, Gregg spent about half a page on an introduction. It was long.

But in 2003, the tests were going to be (A) anonymous and then (B) destroyed. Those were the rules of engagement, and in any civilized contest, the rules of engagement are critical.

So what Gregg is saying is that because the steroids test got leaked, A-Rod could sue anyone and everyone for invasion of privacy and the suit would involve many other litigious terms that would scare the layman but attorneys charge $200/hour so they know they have plenty of time to figure out what all the words mean.

All because he took a test that was supposed to be (A) anonymous and then (B) destroyed. It was neither (A) nor (B). But what came next was worse.

Not to continue to be an A-Rod defender but the players only submitted to the testing because it was anonymous and was going to be destroyed. If 5% of the players tested positive then the players would agree to steroid testing. I would be pretty pissed off if I was a player at the fact this information was leaked out.

The government also got its hands on the test results of hundreds of other players. Including Alex Rodriguez.

Oh, and thousands of regular people's results, too.

I don't know if this is true or not, but I can see the government doing this.

If the government got its hands on my anonymously submitted drug test, and the results of my test were leaked, and the fallout caused me any problems at all, I'll tell you what I'd do: I'd sue.

And I'd win.

This is an aspect of the Alex Rodriguez steroid case that has not really been discussed at length, and that is the aspect that the steroids test were supposed to be anonymous and destroyed. By someone releasing A-Rod's positive steroid test it seems they did in effect invade his privacy in a way. Granted, A-Rod is a cheating and lying dirtbag, but the public now knows the result of a private drug test.

I hope he sues them and beats them -- because next time, the privacy they invade might be yours. Or mine.

That may be a little dramatic. My biggest problem with the story that A-Rod did steroids is that his name was the only one among the 104 that got leaked. Obviously, someone knows the names of the other 103 major league players that failed drug tests and I am not sure if they are going to try and release them one by one or what is going on. I think either those records need to be destroyed immediately or all of the names need to be released. It is slightly unfair the biggest fish in the story got called out publicly and the other names that won't sell books have been held back. I say destroy them all or bring all the names out.

Michael Rosenberg doesn't like the regular season in college basketball and I think he is very wrong.

Pittsburgh is about to play Connecticut in a matchup of top-five teams. North Carolina just beat Duke at Cameron Indoor Stadium in another matchup of national-title contenders.

Are you watching? I suspect most of us are not.

I already feel like I am reading Bill Simmons' "tennis is dead" article from last year. I read the first sentence and immediately realized the author is wrong and thinks just because he/she doesn't watch the game, no one else does either.

I watched both games.

A month from now, college basketball will present us with the best postseason in American sports. In the meantime, we have to talk ourselves into thinking that when two of the best teams in the country face each other, it's a big game.

How is it not a big game? It is a matchup between two of the top teams in the country to determine which team is the better team. Why does every game have to mean something or eliminate someone from the tournament? If the regular season means very little in college basketball, then it means very little in the NFL, MLB, NBA, and pretty much every other sport. College football is the only sport that eliminates a team based on one loss, that is what makes it so exciting, but that is also what makes it so frustrating.

Some people watch games to be entertained, not necessarily just because the game means something. Every game does not need hype, it can be enjoyable on it's own. At what point did the stupid ass media think that if they don't hype a game up properly then it will not be a good or even important game? I don't need hype, I just like watching two teams play each other.

And yet, if you replace the BCS, you have to be very, very careful. College football still has the best regular season in all of sports. If USC played Notre Dame in late November, and both teams were ranked in the top five, but you knew that no matter who won, they would both end up in a playoff, what would you have?

You would have a really good game that would determine who may be ranked #1 in the country at the end of the year and it would determine seeding for the playoff. Also, this is a red herring or faulty logic because those two teams are not in the same conference. You can't start off talking about conference games and then talk about non-conference games. The Big East conference games are all about seeding and bragging rights, it determines which team is the best team in the long run, not just a team that can have one good night and reap the benefits down the road.

Duke-North Carolina, that's what.

You mean a game between two great teams that is entertaining to watch? Fuck that, who wants that? Sporting events are supposed to be fun to watch, every game doesn't have to determine something in the grand scheme of things.

When was the last team Duke knocked Carolina out of the national title hunt, like Florida and Florida State have done on a regular basis?

By the way, Michael has absolutely no solution for this. Nothing irritates me more than someone who has a grand idea of why everything sucks but has no clue of how to fix it and does not provide any suggestions. Here are two suggestions Michael may like:

1. Duke-UNC should never play each other in the regular season? That would include the ACC Tournament by the way, so good luck having a good tournament where there is a split champion because the teams can't play each other in the regular season so they can face off in the NCAA Tournament, which they have done a total of ZERO total times...dumbass. I can't wait for the Big East tournament when UConn and Pitt don't play each other too. That should be a joy to watch.

2. How about college basketball adopt a BCS type system? That would be a nightmare, if anyone thinks the BCS system is bad, just try to adopt this system. So many games are played that every team would have a claim to the National Championship Game. Georgetown and PIttisburgh beat UConn, and Pittsburgh lost to Louisville and Villanova. Can you imagine the problems with this system? I am getting a headache just thinking about it.

Michael gives us no solutions, so he has not point and should go back to Detroit and write for the paper he writes for that is probably laying people off as I type.

How can UNC-Duke be the best rivalry when bragging rights are often split in a given year?

You mean how can it be the best rivalry when both teams consistently beat each other, thereby ensuring each game is going to be close? Michael Rosenberg needs an editor very badly. If this sentence said, "how can UNC-Duke be the best rivalry if one team always beats the other," it may have made sense. The very idea of a great rivalry is when both teams are evenly matched. I am flabbergasted right now that this sentence got published.

According to Michael Rosenberg, the best rivalries are one sided.

And there is no going back. Syracuse coach Jim Boeheim actually wants to expand the tourney. Boeheim has been on that kick for several years and seems to think a 128-team field would be just great.

Jim Boeheim thinks this is a good idea and I think it is a horrible idea.

While we're at it, why keep score in the regular season at all? Just let the kids play for the thrill of it and see if they can still get a TV deal.

Using any of the logic Rosenberg uses here, pretty much every sport should never have a regular season. How often do UConn-Pitt face off in the NCAA Tournament? Very rarely and Duke-UNC have never played each other in the NCAA Tournament. The reason the regular season exists is so these teams can play each other. The NCAA Tournament is about the best teams playing the teams they don't normally play to determine who the best team overall is, not about teams in the same conference playing each other again. If you think the NCAA Tournament is about giving UConn-Pitt a chance to play each other again, you don't understand college basketball. What makes the regular season games so exciting is that those teams are not going to play, most likely, for the rest of the year.

The college basketball system is better because not only do you get the rivalry games but to be crowned National Champion you have to go through other great teams. Sure, a Duke-UNC game may not mean much in regards to who wins the National Championship, but it is fun to watch and that is the point.