2 comments Peter King's Mail and His Favorite Male

It's Peter King week here at Bottom of the Barrel, not officially of course, but he has been the product of much of my focus this week. Before I get to rambling about Peter King, I want to remind everyone we need at least one more team for the Yahoo football league so we can play head-to-head. Don't make me bring a random person in the league, like one of my friends (I am joking, I have no real friends because I don't leave the attic), they don't even know I have a blog about sports (because I am a super secret person) so I would have to explain that to them when they wondered about the name of the league. So someone else please sign up to save me from that. I have also put a vote up on the Yahoo league site to see who wants to move the draft time back to August 30th from August 16th. Vote how you see fit.

This may shock everyone but Peter King has some thoughts on Brett Favre unretiring, and these thoughts are very Peter King-ish. On to Peter King and his Tuesday mailbag first.

What Tony Dungy is about to do with Michael Vick is no different from what Dungy has been doing with Vick for months.

Teaching Vick how to shank a person in a jailhouse crowd so as not to get caught?

Dungy told me this morning in his first comments since Monday's news. He was referring to the trip he made, on his own, last spring to see Vick in federal prison in Kansas. "I gave him my telephone numbers and I said, 'Call me anytime. I want to stay in touch,' and that's what we've done."

Within the hour of those telephone numbers being handed over to Mike Vick, the phone numbers were on EBay for sell to the highest bidder.

Look, the Vickster had to file bankruptcy so he needs to make a few bucks to pay for weed and an entourage now that the government has shut down his Bad Newz Kennelz business. Having people around you at all times to take care of your needs, like to take the fall for any crime you may commit, doesn't pay for itself.

As I wrote yesterday, the Dungy I know is incapable of telling a lie.

Tony Dungy is the George Washington of the modern era. Now all he needs is a powdered wig, some false teeth and some slaves and he should be good to go. Wait, cancel those slaves...he'll just hire Mike Vick's old Atlanta Falcons entourage and rehabilitate them as well.

My money, based on what I've heard from Dungy and others about Vick's settled-down lifestyle, is that he won't be suspended for six regular-season weeks.

Men have been trying to convince their wife to let them have the same settled down lifestyle for a while now. If the commissioner was a woman, Mike Vick would never have been reinstated unless he can provide a better argument than millions of men before him gave for why he went to a strip club and how that is "settled down."

My favorite part is just Vick denying he went to a strip club after he was released from jail. From a man who is known for lying when he is caught, I can't imagine anyone should really ever believe him. Why should we believe him? His first reaction when he has been accused of anything is to lie. He has the deny, deny, deny, admit, and apologize behavior down pat. I think we are in the second "deny" of the cycle right now.

Vick has a son from a previous relationship and two daughters with his current girlfriend. His youngest daughter was three months old when Vick was in prison, so he's basically just getting to know her now.

Poor Mike Vick, he barely got to know his daughter before he got locked up in jail. I am sure Vick is going to not try and play football so he can stay home and get to know his family better. I would feel bad for him if that was the case, but the first and second thing he is going to try and do is find a way to play football again...which means time away from his daughter he barely knows.

I am not judging him, I am just saying I am not buying the "Vick is going to get to know his family better" angle because it is not true. I don't know why Peter is even mentioning that angle. Vick is about playing football ASAP.

I owe you one, Houston Texans' fans. On Monday, I said I'd write today about Matt Schaub. Unfortunately, the news of the day has dictated that I delay the Schaub story until next Monday's MMQB. Please accept my apology.

Haha, Houston Texans fans, you fell for Peter King's little joke. What are the odds next Monday something will happen that will push the story back? Then the story turns out to be a paragraph on something anyone who follows the team already knows? I think the odds are good for that to happen.

Steve of Las Vegas: "Peter, the popularity of the spread offense in college is drastically cutting down the number of pro-style quarterbacks ready for the NFL. Are the pro teams going to start adopting the spread offense and using QBs like Tim Tebow, or are they going to be competing more intensely for the very small number of traditional quarterbacks?"

Steve, my answer to this is the NFL is going to try and turn the spread quarterbacks into traditional NFL quarterbacks. Also, Tim Tebow is not exactly your traditional spread quarterback and he will be the exception and not the rule when he comes to the NFL in 2010. For example, not a lot of NFL teams run the entire offense out of the shotgun and these spread quarterbacks are incredibly used to running the offense out of the shotgun. Having to do a three or five step drop is going to be a little adjustment for these players.

Peter, your answer?

As you may know, I'm a big Tebow supporter and believe there is a role for him in the NFL in 2010. I'm not sure that role is as an every-down quarterback. But I do believe there are two or three teams that would pick him late in the first round if he's there.

New England. Just say it Peter.

About the spread, I think the NFL likes its quarterback versatile and accurate and smart and strong-armed. And I think with the exception of the strong-armed part, the spread helps young quarterbacks grow into better NFL players.

It does help to an extent. The one aspect Peter neglects is that the spread traditionally doesn't rely on quarterbacks taking the snap directly from center and it has the quarterback in the shotgun. I would think he would bring this up, since it is a major adjustment for quarterbacks making the switch from the college spread to the NFL, where the shotgun is not used as often.

Peter is a little off on this answer. The NFL does like it's quarterbacks to have all those characteristics but I still believe there is an adjustment required for a spread quarterback in the NFL...namely that few NFL teams are going to run a spread type style offense. The Patriots sometimes look to have characteristics of the spread, since the quarterback comes from the shotgun a lot, but much like the option I don't know how successful the spread offense would be in the NFL full time, which means a quarterback will have to adjust, so the NFL will draft quarterbacks higher in the draft who don't have to go through the adjustment period.

I don't think the spread or the Wildcat are gimmick plays by any stretch of the imagination, but I also don't think that type of offense will end up pervading the NFL in a few years. Much like the running quarterback, I think the Wildcat and spread type offense will always be a part of the overall offense gameplan but just not the focus of the gameplan.

I think Peter should have written all of that.

Jeff Davis of Norman, Okla.: "Peter, I know you are a die-hard Pats fan, but does Spygate not taint the Pats record in their quest toward Team of the Decade

I love the die-hard Pats fan thing. I sort of tend to say the same thing about him, except just say he is a die-hard fan of the entire Northeast and it's football teams. Jeff, this is kind of a dumb question because Spygate is old news at this point and there was really no other information that came out on how much New England was cheating and they also weren't the only ones doing so. Sure, it should factor in when talking about Peter's completely fake "Team of the Decade," but Spygate is sort of old news now. The Patriots have proven they can win regardless, so think of a better reason if you don't think they should be "Team of the Decade."

or do you just want an asterisk? If -- and it is a big if -- the Steelers go back-to-back to win three this decade, shouldn't they get the nod because they didn't cheat to win?"

I still think this is a stupid question because the Patriots went 18-1 after Spygate, so as much fun as it would be to say the entire decade is ruined because of that, I am not sure it is true. Maybe Spygate should be taken into account more by me when determing the "Team of the Decade," of course I also think naming a "Team of the Decade" is completely stupid. Thanks for the sour grapes though Jeff.

I have a really interesting college football question for Jeff from Norman Oklahoma...

Is the Oklahoma University football team planning on choking in another bowl game this year? Wow, five BCS bowl games lost in a row. It's nice to get to those games but I sure bet it would be nice to win them as well. That also doesn't include the loss to Texas last year...which was yet another game lost by "Big Game" Bob Stoops. Can we call a coach "Big Game" if he has lost five straight BCS bowl games?

I'm sorry...I get off on tangents sometimes.

On to Peter's answer:

I'm not a Patriots fan: I'm not a fan of any team.

Yet he continues to write about the same teams over and over and seems to have "special relationships" with players on certain teams. Maybe that is just being an insider.

I am, however, a great admirer of what the Patriots have done. It's up to each person who follows the sport to decide if the Patriots' illicit activities tarnish their accomplishment in this decade. To me, the video taping does have an effect on my opinion of their success. But not enough to take away the credit for any of the three Super Bowls the team won or, after the video taping had ceased, the Patriots having the first 16-0 regular season in history. Like I said yesterday, New England will be the team of the decade in my book unless the Pats collapse this year and the Steelers win a third Super Bowl.

So basically Peter thinks it should have an effect on his ranking for "Team of the Decade" just not enough of an effect to not make the Patriots "Team of the Decade" if both they and the Steelers win three Super Bowls...because that is the biggest difference in the Steelers and the Patriots right now in the 2000's, that the Patriots have one more Super Bowl than the Steelers (of course they also made another Super Bowl)...so basically Spygate makes no difference to him. It's fine Peter, just say it.

Erik Heter of Austin, Texas: "You mention a debate about Steve McNair's possibility for induction into the HOF. In the past, I recall that you are one of those who is AGAINST the induction of Kurt Warner into the HOF. Thus, how can one even consider that McNair is HOF-worthy if they don't think Warner is worthy as well. Warner has been to three Super Bowls, winning one; McNair, just one, and he lost. And who did McNair's team lose to in his one SB appearance? Warner's, of course. In what world would it be justice that McNair makes the HOF but Warner doesn't?"

Yeah...but...Kurt Warner wasn't killed! That's the ticket! There's the difference. Look Erik from Texas, if you are going to try and make sense for some of Peter's reasoning, you are just going to drive yourself crazy. Take it from me.

What I said during the playoffs last year is that Kurt Warner had a five-year hole in the middle of his career, during which he was either hurt or a backup, and I thought he hadn't done enough to be a strong Hall of Fame candidate.

Steve McNair was hurt his entire career, of course he played through it, and I am pretty sure he was benched for Kyle Boller at one point with the Ravens. So some of the criticisms of Warner could also go for McNair.

Peter King is also covering a story about a guy named Brett Favre who can't decide if he wants to retire or not. When I say "covering" I mean writing three columns in the past day about Favre retiring.

Overkill? Not for someone who is obsessed with Brett Favre and everything he does. The defensive coordinator for the Philadephia Eagles died (Jim Johnson, you may have even heard Peter talk about him in his MMQB this past week but his death pales in comparison to any announcement of Brett Favre's) and Peter gives that little to no mention...and certainly doesn't write an entire article about it. He's only dead, but Brett Favre retired again! That's important news!

Let's look at some quotes from these three historical documents from Favre's 3rd retirement.

"You've just got to be able to commit to this game," Childress said. "And there's a ramping-up process involved. You know, last year all of a sudden he's there in New York, and he's playing, and in October he's out of gas.

There you go former New York Jets teammates of Brett Favre. He didn't drag the team down and cost you a playoff spot because he is not a good quarterback, he dragged the team down and cost you a playoff spot because he was tired. That should make you feel better.

When Childress and Favre spoke Tuesday afternoon, Favre sounded disappointed. Childress said to him: "What's that tone [of voice]? Come on. Nobody died here."

Actually Jim Johnson did die...but that's not important because we need to focus on how sad Brett Favre is that he has delayed his decision to stay in the spotlight until later in the offseason. I bet Favre was ready to make the decision to retire/stay retired the same day Michael Jackson died but he held off on the announcement so he could make sure everyone was paying attention to him.

Childress, however, doesn't think he has lost his quarterbacks or his team. "This doesn't say anything negative about Sage," said Childress, referring to the April acquisition from Houston.

We just think a 40 year old coming off an incredibly average season where he tired out by October would be a better quarterback than Rosenfels is. What's negative about that inference?

"We had a chance to go after a Hall of Fame quarterback who knows the division better than anybody, who's very comfortable in our offense

You know who else is a Hall of Fame quarterback? Troy Aikman, Joe Montana, and Joe Namath. I didn't see the Vikings trying to sign them this offseason. See, there is a huge difference in a guy who is CURRENTLY a Hall of Fame quarterback and a guy who was a Hall of Fame quarterback half a decade ago. There is a big, big difference.

Our guards had to compete when Steve Hutchinson got here. Our defensive ends had to compete when Jared Allen got here. So no, I'm not sorry we went after Favre."

Hutchinson and Allen were better football players than the incumbents at their position and were planning on being there more than one season. Throw in the fact these players were clearly better than anything the Vikings already had and these players did not take 3 months to decide if they wanted to play for the Vikings and we are talking about two completely different situations.

Now for Peter's second article about Favre...

I give up.

Now you know how 95% of the world feels.

He had surgery in late May on a nagging biceps tendon in his throwing arm for one reason -- to clear the last hurdle toward playing a 19th year in the NFL. And his surgeon, the noted James Andrews, told him he was making splendid progress and he'd be fine and be able to throw at the start of the season with no pain.

And yet, something just didn't feel right. When Favre would talk to friends and associates in recent weeks, they noticed a reticence in his voice. "He was coming to the realization that he couldn't be 100 percent committed to football right now," one friend said Tuesday night. "Sometimes he felt ready to go, and sometimes he felt like, 'What am I doing?'"

I think in less than a month he will be ready to go again. There's no doubt in my mind this is true.

Can this man make a decision in a timely fashion or not?

As I often like to quote (or paraphrase) Tony Soprano, "It doesn't matter what decision you make, it's that you make the decision in a timely manner...to avoid confusion."

Don't ask me anymore what I think about Favre, whether I think he's going to play or whether I think he's going to mow the grass for the rest of his life. I don't know because I honestly don't think he knows.

Fine Peter, we will never mention him again. As long as you NEVER FUCKING TALK ABOUT HIM AGAIN! DEAL? GREAT, SHUT UP ABOUT HIM AND WE WON'T ASK QUESTIONS!

I talked to two people Tuesday night who know Favre and asked them the same question: Do you think he'll return at some point this year if some team suffers a big quarterback injury. One said he had no idea. The other said Favre's certainly in good enough shape. It wouldn't be a bit surprising.

For the love of God, just make a choice. Either Brett Favre is the most indecisive man in the history of the world or he just craves attention for himself.

And so at the end of the day, we're left to wonder if one of the most compelling football careers of all time is over or just on indefinite leave. I don't think anybody knows because I don't think Favre knows.

I am not even going to touch the "compelling career" thing because Favre and the media has made his career compelling by covering his off the field exploits so heavily.

Peter's excuse for Favre has always been that even he doesn't know what he will do. That's not good enough. There is no excuse to drag an organization over the coals (or two organizations if you count Green Bay), stay retired and then say you may come back the very same day you just "retired." I don't care if Brett doesn't know what Brett is going to do...he needs to ask himself pretty damn quickly what he wants to do and figure it the hell out.

Will they survive Favre hangover? I say the only way they do is by by Rosenfels becoming a 60 percent, 3,500-yard passer.

Or they could think about how great it would be to not have a quarterback who gets tired in October of the NFL season? Or one that doesn't throw as many interceptions as touchdown passes when all is said and done. Or how Green Bay certainly survived without Favre last year. I think the Vikings will survive.

Now for King's third article on Brett Favre...

He still sounded stunned that a few hours earlier he'd called Minnesota coach Brad Childress and shunned his dream job: quarterback on a team with a great defense and the best running back in football, with coaches who run a scheme he could operate falling out of bed.

Have we checked into the possibility that Brett Favre has multiple personalities? That could explain a lot of things that have happened. Why would he be stunned when HE made the freaking decision?

"Very unlikely,'' he said. "I really believe this is it. I truly, truly believe it's over. But if someone calls Nov. 1, who knows?''

Read that sentence again. Just read it. It doesn't even make sense. He truly believe it is over, but then he doesn't know for sure...so he doesn't believe it is over then. Right?

Based on this sentence I am thinking Favre is looking to take over a team mid-season and become the hero for that team, thereby making people forget his semi-failure in New York last year and also it would not require him to play a full season when he would get tired doing so. Basically, Brett Favre is now angling for one of the 32 NFL quarterbacks' starting position and hoping someone gets hurt in time for him to come in and save the day.

That's the maddening part of Favre, and the part that makes fans hate his waffling.

It's gone from hating the waffling to actually hating him as a person. Irrational, I agree, but it is some semblance of the truth now. Everyone just wants him to make a decision and for Peter King and ESPN to quit acting like it is the biggest decision in the history of the world, when it is just a guy who wants attention stringing out his decision so he can get more attention.

But when he worked out earlier this month, he said he felt like he'd just played in a game. He had more aches and pains -- a knee and ankles mostly -- than he ever had while working out.

"I thought I could make it through the season, though I wouldn't be 100 percent,'' he said.

I'm telling you. He is trying to pull a Roger Clemens and join a team halfway through the season. I don't think it would work as well in football. He's probably praying a QB gets hurt or is ineffective so he can be a hero and not have to play an entire season. History will see him as the hero and not an average quarterback who can't make a decision...though I will always see him that way.

"A lot of people, I know, have been saying, 'Well, you strung the Vikings along. Why the hell couldn't you have told them earlier?' What do you think I was doing? I was trying to figure it out.''

The thing is that nobody believes Brett Favre was trying to figure it out because he has made it all about Brett Favre. It's all about Brett Favre. Last year's unretirement was about proving to the Packers he could play because Brett Favre wanted to unretire and the Packers had moved on without him. If it was really not all about Brett Favre and was about playing football he would be with the New York Jets right now and would not try to join a team in the same division as the Green Bay Packers.

So, for now it's over. For now.

There is no doubt in my mind he will be back. Zero doubt. Peter King is absolutely obsessed with Brett Favre. 3 articles about him in 1 day. That has to be some sort of a record.