Peter King Doesn't Know Much About the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame Either

It's official, I think Peter King believes pretty much what anyone tells him...or is at least afraid of doing research. We'll get to that more in a minute when we get to the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame omissions list that Peter and his readers put together. First, it is time for another exciting Peter King mailbag on this first day of the NCAA Tournament. Today, he is profiling Demaryius Thomas of Georgia Tech (why I don't know) before he gets drafted by an NFL team in April. I have to say, it is pretty clear Peter didn't watch too much of Thomas' games at Georgia Tech just by the way he speaks about him. Really, it is Thomas' back story that gets to Peter. What is this, American Idol or something?

One of the most intriguing players in the draft is a receiver from Georgia Tech named Demaryius Thomas. In 2009, Thomas averaged 25.1 yards per catch (for his career, it was 19.5, on 120 catches), and at 6-foot-3 and 224 pounds,

That per catch average is very impressive, but is also incredibly misleading. What Peter doesn't know, or fails to mention, is that Thomas played at Georgia Tech where they run the triple option attack. Basically, it is impressive that he has such a large per catch average, but it may not necessarily be indicative of his ability as a receiver. Most of the time defenses had both safeties in the box or little over the top help on Thomas in order to pay attention to the running game for Georgia Tech. So most of the time Thomas had single coverage on the outside against a cornerback against very little safety help. Of course in passing situations he was double covered, but Georgia Tech didn't seem to be in too many obvious passing downs this year given the success of their running game.

I don't think this should drop his draft stock, but just throwing out his per catch average and leaving out the type of offense he played in is misleading to everyone involved. He caught 46 balls in 14 games or a little bit over 3.2 catches per game. Also, the routes that he ran weren't exactly varied. This shouldn't take away from him, but I do think the fact he rarely faced coverage with a safety over the top and didn't seem to run more than go routes should be mentioned as well.

I like Demaryius Thomas, but his statistics can be misleading. On passing downs he was doubled by the defense, but other than that he had pretty free rein in the secondary.

Thomas has the size and route-running ability to be a solid starting NFL receiver -- if not a star.

Clearly this is not based on Peter's first hand account of watching Thomas, but someone told him this. If Peter saw Thomas run he probably would not have claimed he has good route running skills. I say this because I did a quick search on Thomas to look for scouting reports and this is what I got:

Route Running: Very green as a route runner. Ran an extremely limited tree at Georgia Tech because of the simple scheme. Rounds his cuts and takes too many steps when he need to make a 90 degree or 180 degree turn. Needs a lot of work in this area.

But because of his lack of experience running the full route tree and reading coverages, he is going to enter the league as a raw talent that needs a lot of coaching.

Another one.

Extremely poor route runner

Too straight up when going into breaks; doesn't sell

Struggles to separate

He lacks speed and there is simply too much development needed to warrant a high second-round pick. Don't buy the hype. Thomas is a projected third-to-fourth-round pick.

There is no way Peter could have scouted Thomas and thought he ran routes well, unless Peter stinks at scouting players. So I don't know who told Peter that Thomas was a great route runner but the very first two hits I got with his scouting report Internet search go out of their way to mention that he is NOT a good route runner, partially due to inexperience. This is another example of Peter King just believing what others tell him. I think this is a problem with him sometimes when he is reporting NFL news. A person will tell him something and I feel like he blindly believes it and then reports it.

Thomas does have the size to be a star but the route running ability leaves something to be desired. This seems to be the consensus among the scouting reports I have read on him.

What makes Thomas more interesting:

This following story has nothing to do with if he is going to be a good NFL player or not.

1. His grandmother trafficked cocaine when he grew up in Georgia, and his mother was a sort of bag lady with the proceeds. When they were caught, the mom wouldn't rat on the grandmother, and Thomas's grandmother got 40 years in prison and his mother 20. He was 12 when it happened, and he was shuttled from family member to family member before finally landing three years later with an uncle who was a preacher. That set him on the right track.

Sad, fairly riveting story. Unfortunately this doesn't have much to do with his draft stock.

2. While working out just before the NFL Scouting Combine on Feb. 16 in Arizona, Thomas cracked a bone in his right foot doing what they call the three-cone drill. He had surgery Feb. 21, and in the 23 days since, he's been going through a gauntlet of medical treatments designed to get him ready to run for NFL scouts before April 15, the date teams have to stop working out players before the draft.

Now this does have something to do with his draft stock. A fairly average fast runner (for wide receivers in the NFL...he runs a 4.55 40 yard dash), who has questions about his route running breaks his foot before the draft...this is something that should give teams pause before drafting him.

Thomas uses a bone stimulator, to speed bone-remodeling. The foot is hit with a cold laser, which stimulates bone-cell growth. He gets massage therapy on the foot. He takes fish oil supplements, a natural anti-inflammatory.

Hopefully he is not using an anti-inflammatory provided to him by Dr. Galea. If so, Mike Lupica has some questions he would like to ask Damaryius Thomas.

The stuff goes back to the surgery itself, when bone marrow was removed from his hip and transfused into the area of the break, where a pin was used to set the bone. "It helps almost like a cement foundation,'' said Anna Hartman, the manager of the Performance Physical Therapy Department at API, who is with Thomas every day. That day is eight and a half hours long.

Obviously this is paid for by Thomas' agents in the hopes they will get paid back down the road. I read about this in a book this past summer. The book followed the 2005 draft and some prospects in that draft and elaborated on how these potential draft choices get the medical attention and training they need. Agents pay for players to get medical attention and train at facilities and then either get paid back when the player gets drafted or hopes to make the money back on the contract the player signs as part of their commission.

His mom is in jail 'til 2017, Thomas said, which means he'd be an eight-year vet if he makes the NFL and survives long enough for her to see him play.

"My mom told me she wishes she wasn't where she was right now,'' Thomas said.

Is he saying his mom doesn't like being in jail? I hear it is so much fun in there and you can meet so many nice people...

Thomas still hopes to be a first-round pick, but he'll need rock-solid medical reviews to be able to stay in the first round. Teams already are skeptical of his 40 time (in the 4.55-second range), and if they think the foot might be susceptible to further injury, his stock would plummet.

I like Damaryius Thomas and I enjoyed watching him play at Georgia Tech, but I don't see how a guy who played in the Georgia Tech offense, had a broken foot and is clearly a minor project as going to go in the 1st round. In fact, depending on his Pro Day showing, I think he may last until the 3rd round. It's just my opinion and I could be wrong. If he went in the late 2nd round then I think he would end up being a steal at that spot.

Canvassing four teams last week and over the weekend, I came away thinking Thomas, if he passes medical muster, will go somewhere in the lower quarter of the first round -- 25 through 32.

I am not saying this won't happen, but I haven't seen Thomas go this high in too many mock drafts. Let's also be honest, Peter hasn't always been the picture of accuracy when it comes to telling us which teams are going to draft what players. Not to mention he hasn't exactly been a picture of accuracy when reporting what other NFL "insiders" have told him.

Examples of this? How about the entire Brett Favre soap opera over the past two summers and pretty much anything else he writes in MMQB that isn't lockout related.

If he does, he'll owe Anna Hartman and her troops in Arizona more than just a hearty thanks.

Oh yeah, and his agents who paid for him to get this rehab.

I got a lot of Tweets and a couple of e-mails outraged that I would lump the late Sean Taylor in with some of the lesser lights from the top of the 2004 draft, and I apologize for not being more specific about the point.

"I apologize for saying exactly what I meant to say. Now I will clarify what I was trying to say by pretending I misquoted myself and actually meant something else."

What I was saying, in pointing out that even in what was thought to be a very strong draft at the time, is I'd still rather have a top-12 quarterback for four years than a risky rookie.

No, what Peter said was this:

The last time I heard so many raves about a draft beforehand was the 2004 crop, with the three good quarterbacks (Rivers, Manning, Roethlisberger) and rock-solid depth at several other positions.

Well, I looked up that draft Sunday, and here were the fifth through 10th picks in this so-called superior draft:

So what he was saying is the draft wasn't superior because the 6 players he listed aren't with the teams that drafted them. He also said this:

Six years later, six of the top 10 picks in a thought-to-be excellent draft are gone, with just traces of the impact they were supposed to have left on their teams.

So he was absolutely lumping the dead Sean Taylor in with the other players who didn't do as well. He just wants to talk his way around it.

Six of the top 10 picks in that draft are not with the teams that drafted them, and a seventh, Robert Gallery of the Raiders, was moved to guard because he couldn't handle the speed rushers at tackle.

Let's look at where these players currently are and see if they are failures:

Robert Gallery- still with team that drafted him and is an above average guard for the same team that drafted him.

Sean Taylor- is dead and was an Pro Bowl player before he died.

Kellen Winslow II- above average tight end and was traded to the Tampa Bucs and given a new large contract. He is not a bust.

Roy Williams- traded to the Dallas Cowboys. He is an average receiver.

DeAngelo Hall- was traded to the Raiders and then was let go by the Raiders. Signed a big contract with the Redskins. Is an average to above average cornerback.

Reggie Williams- bust.

Dunta Robinson- signed a free agent contract with the Atlanta Falcons this offseason and is considered a #1 cornerback in the NFL.

So granted, none of these players but Gallery are with their original team, but none of them are quarterbacks and the fact they are with new teams isn't necessarily a reflection on their talent. So I still don't see the exact comparison to this year's draft or how this group of players shows the 2004 draft was overrated.

I didn't call Taylor a failure, but I can see how the implication was that he was one.

You mean by the implication in that you listed him with other players in a "so-called superior draft?"

From Jordan Wall of Clearwater, Fla.: "Peter, help me out with the logic of NFL free agency. The Jets just released Thomas Jones, a back who ran for 4.2 yards per carry last year, and immediately signed LaDainian Tomlinson, who ran for a meager 3.3 yards per carry that same season. Is it just me or do these general managers/head coaches get too caught up in "name" players who occasionally make a highlight, and completely overlook the consistent producers they already have on their teams?''

Jordan, yes this is part of what happens. The Jets didn't want to keep Thomas Jones for how much money they were paying him. They also realized they were good enough to start. So they in essence downgraded at running back so Shonn Greene could end up starting. Since Jones outplayed Greene this year, he probably wasn't going to accept being Greene's backup this year.

PK: This was a pretty simple case of economics. Thomas Jones was due $5.8 million in 2010, and he was going to back up Shonn Greene. Though the Jets probably would have rather had Jones than Tomlinson, Tomlinson will make $3.1 million this year and $5.2 million over the two years of the deal.

So the Jets decided to essentially downgrade their running game, which running the ball well is what they base their entire offense upon, so they could save $2.7 million this year and $600,000 if they had cut Jones after this year? Basically, the Jets would rather have two seasons of Tomlinson over one more season of Thomas Jones.

Do I agree with this decision? Actually I do not, but it's their team and their money. I would think with in an offense predicated on running the ball, a team would generally want two quality running backs and not one unproven (over an entire season) running back and a declining veteran. I guess I would be wrong.

From Robert Jensen of Boston: "I think you should ask Roger Goodell if he thinks the NCAA should increase the tournament from 65 to 96 teams -- the 47 percent increase in teams (and games) with a 0 percent meaningfulness increase is only slightly greedier than increasing the NFL season to 18 games (with a plan, I'm sure, to not pay anything more to the players for this honor). Although, if he studies the plan too much he might realize that he can just let in twice as many teams and extend the playoffs two more weeks and he'd get the same or higher TV ratings.''

I have to say, I am a little worried for the NFL's future right now. Over the next couple of years we have a lockout to look forward to, as well as the NFL deciding to increase the regular season by 2 games in an effort to make more money. In my opinion, those are two things that could hurt the quality of the NFL product, as well as alienate some fans. Of course it is all about money and if they think they can make more money, there is nothing anyone can do...unless the union tries to make this a huge deal in the labor negotiations.

PK: As one GM told me last fall, "The 18-game schedule is a freight train rolling down the tracks.'' The owners want it.

Between my local NFL team cutting players for non-performance or football reasons in an effort to save money, the fact the NFL owners want the players to help subsidize the running of their stadium, and the owners want to increase the amount of games that are going to be played in a season...I am becoming pretty firmly on the side of the player's union at this point.

I know there is greed in the NFL, but to want the players to help pay for stadium costs, want the players to play more games for the same salary, and knowing the owners are making a ton of money regardless of these changes...I think the owners are being assholes and nothing is going to stop them at this point.

From Sam Johnson of Kansas City: "Greg Olsen wants out of Chicago. How 'bout the Chiefs? Since losing Tony Gonzalez, the Chiefs were awful at TE. Olsen would be a great fit while they're hunting down quality wideouts to complement him.''

PK: Knowing Scott Pioli, he's dying for a crack at building his roster his way, with young, inexpensive players through the draft and through secondary free agency. I doubt he'd deal his high second-round pick for Olsen -- if the Bears decided to put him on the market at all.

Knowing what Scott Pioli has done so far with the Chiefs, like trading his high second round pick last year for Matt Cassel and Mike Vrabel, and trying to trade draft picks for Anquan Boldin this year, it doesn't seem Peter King knows Scott Pioli too well. While Peter says he knows how Pioli is looking to build the team, his trade overtures seem to indicate something slightly different.

I am not saying the Bears will trade for Olsen, just saying Pioli has been active in the trade market and has traded a 2nd round pick before. So it wouldn't be shocking if he tried to trade a draft pick for a proven player.

From Matt Burk of Pittsburgh. "Peter, what's wrong with Matt Hasselbeck all of a sudden in Seattle? All you heard about earlier was how happy the Seahawks are that he's their QB for the next several years, etc., and now you're trying to push Donovan McNabb on them. What, if anything, has changed there?''

"Matt, I don't have my own opinion. I only report what others tell me. I don't question what they tell me at all. So it's true one week I may say Matt Hasselbeck is the Seahawks quarterback for the next two years, but the next week think the Seahawks will cut him to trade for another quarterback. I have no backbone nor do I question anything a person tells me. I am essentially a puppet who says what others tell me to say."

PK: Probably nothing. When I spoke with Pete Carroll in January, he talked about wanting to get at least two more years out of Hasselbeck. But he's missed 15 games due to injury in the past four years, he turns 35 in September, and you've got to wonder, in a relatively weak division, if putting all your eggs in his basket is a smart thing to do.

So it obviously makes sense to trade for a quarterback who has had his own injury issues in the past, who will be 34 in November and then put all your eggs in one basket by trading draft picks from a rebuilding team for him. Obviously, this makes perfect sense.

I don't think Carroll will deal for McNabb; I just think he should.

Peter, do you think this because one of McNabb's representatives floated this idea to you?

Otherwise if the they did this, the Seahawks are essentially trading picks for a quarterback one year younger than Matt Hasselbeck.

AND HERE ARE YOUR ROCK AND ROLL HALL OF FAME OMISSIONS:

Caution: This is not an idiot-free zone. You will be shocked and awed at the suggestions Peter gets and the lack of Peter's ability and his readers ability to do simple Internet searches.

1. Rush (Greg in Beavercreek, Ohio)

I don't like Rush, but I am buying on this one. They should be in.

2. Moody Blues (Dennis in Denver)

I am desperately trying to think what they brought interesting or creative to the music world that would cause their induction to be necessary...nope, can't think of anything.

3. Tom Petty (Tim in Medford, N.J.)

Tom Petty should absolutely be in the Hall of Fame. In fact, I would have inducted Tom Petty in the Hall of Fame way back in 2002. Wait, he was inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in 2002? So it's not 2001 anymore?

It took me 22 seconds to type "Tom Petty Rock and Roll Hall of Fame" and scroll down to see that he has already been inducted. So either Tim from New Jersey or Peter King from New Jersey needs to do some damn research. This is weak and lazy.

Peter is not done with his inaccuracy.

4. Hall & Oates (James in Kansas City)

You mean the same guys who are currently performing live on QVC and selling their records through that medium as well? Let me be the first to say that records sales should mean shit when it comes to whether an artist deserves to be in the Hall of Fame or not. Hall and Oates sold records, sure, but they also really aren't unique and aren't Hall of Fame worthy artists. Other than a legacy of thick mustaches and vague homo-eroticism, what did they bring to music that makes them deserve induction?

Any asshole with a good producer and songwriting partners can sell records. Let's not forget that. Also, let's not forget in the 80's everyone was on cocaine and would pretty much buy any album that had a video on MTV.

5. Genesis (Jay in Southboro, Mass.)

Yeah, Genesis should be in the Hall of Fame. I would induct them THIS YEAR! Hold on a second, they are being inducted this year? I would like to add the announcement came Monday and Peter King wrote this mailbag on Tuesday, so he should have known this.

Again, anyone with an Internet search engine should have known Genesis was in the Hall of Fame. I do wonder if there is anyone at CNNSI.com that can proofread some of these columns for accuracy? I can't help but think out of a list of 5 artists who should be in the Hall of Fame, the fact 2 of those artists are inducted or will be inducted should get caught by someone.

I got Tweeted about 50 rock Tweets on Monday, most telling me I was nuts to say KISS belongs.

KISS is just okay. I don't know if they should be in or not. Either way, Peter's reasoning sucks.

Look, regardless of your feeling about the quality of their music (and I've never been a fan), any group that sells 100 million records deserves to be in the rock hall.

Absolutely not. Selling records is a terrible reason for a band or artist to be allowed in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. It is supposed to be for artists who contributed something unique to music or were unique in their own way, not for artists who had hits and sold a bunch of records. Based on this premise, any late 90's or early 2000's boy band or girl band should be allowed in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame.