7 comments MMQB Review: Not Talking About the Labor Situation Edition

This week Peter King decides he doesn't want to talk about the pending NFL lockout, so he immediately starts talking about the pending lockout and its impact on NFL teams. Peter also talks about the Combine and how overrated it is, then begins to give his impressions of players based on their Combine performance. Finally we all get what we have been waiting for, which is Peter's opinion on Colin Firth's win for Best Actor at the Oscars. Congratulations Colin, you are British! Peter's new friend John Legend was happy to see you win.

There will be plenty of time in the next few weeks to discuss labor. (Sigh.) You'll be overwhelmed with it this week. For now, in the wake of a long, uncertain weekend at the scouting combine, I'm going mostly football.

Now that Peter has said this his MMQB will be filled with talk about the lockout and how it affects the players, the upcoming season, and the Combine. I'm just glad he spared us all the talk about the labor situation though.

Two examples of how restricted teams are in dealing with their players right now:

I know Peter pretty much has to talk about the labor situation because it affects nearly everything, but he specifically just said he wasn't going to discuss it and now he is talking about how players can't meet with their players right now...because of the labor situation.

The Rams hoped to have new offensive coordinator Josh McDaniels sit down in a classroom often in February to discuss the tweaks he plans to make in the offense after the departure of 2010 offensive boss Pat Shurmur to the Browns. No dice. The league told the Rams they couldn't do anything they wouldn't do under normal circumstances, and ruled that normal circumstances would have coaches and players not meeting 'til at least March. So McDaniels will have to keep his tweaks to himself until there's a new CBA.

Again, THIS IS IN NO WAY LABOR RELATED! This is Peter talking football. Like a man does. With beer in his hand, actually a special beer/coffee mix that Starbucks makes for the low price of $13.99. There's beer-coffee in his hand and he's just talking football with the guys and avoiding talking about the pending lockout by talking about the pending lockout.

One team I can't identify wanted to send out DVDs to players with how-to reminders about offseason weight training.

Peter actually can't identify the team because he had never heard of that team before. Something about the Houston Texases or the Fort Worth Rednecks...whatever it was Peter had certainly never heard of this NFL team so he couldn't identify them well. He did hear this Alex Johnson guy is a pretty good receiver and he plays for the Fort Worth Rodeo Clowns. He may go check him out sometime. It will make a good road trip for Peyton Manning and him.

The DVDs wouldn't have any "you've got to work out hard, and you better come back in shape'' commands, but simple explanations of the correct way to do each exercise and lift. The DVDs were prepared. The league said, in essence, that it wasn't going to allow it. Too much of a chance for something like that to end up in a court case, if one ever were filed by the union, with the NFLPA saying players were being pressured by the team to work out during the lockout.

Not to keep harping, but this is talking about the labor situation. If your wife tells you she will quit harping about you being too lazy to take out the garbage, then starts talking about how she can't fit anything in the trash can because it is full, she is still talking about taking out the garbage. Same thing here. Not talking specifically about the labor situation, but talking about all the things teams can't do because of the labor situation is still talking about the labor situation.

But the Bucs are a good example of why fans should be worried about their team this offseason if there's a prolonged work stoppage.

(Bengoodfella shaking his head sadly)

It is fine to talk about it. Just don't say you won't talk about it and then do discuss it. That's all.

Dining with a business-side front-office guy one night here, I asked how he thought the top of the draft would fall. Give me a guess, I said.

"You could ask 10 personnel guys their 1-2-3 in the draft right now," he said, "and I'd put money on them all giving you a different top three.''

In late February before nearly every single NFL Draft this is true. This draft isn't any more unpredictable at this point than most other drafts have been. Peter does this type of thing all the time. He writes during the season about how this current NFL season is so much crazier and unpredictable than other NFL seasons. He does this nearly every year. Last year we did know Suh was going in the Top 3, but I'm not sure anyone knew Sam Bradford would be #1 overall, especially given the questions about the health of his shoulder. The year before that, no one knew a week before the draft Tyson Jackson would go #3. It's always unpredictable and teams will always rank the top players differently at the end of February or beginning of March.

Barring a major surprise, there won't be a labor deal by the time the draft kicks off April 28. Teams can't make player trades either. So let's say you're the 49ers and you want a veteran quarterback to run new coach Jim Harbaugh's West Coast offense. You can't go after Kevin Kolb or Carson Palmer -- at least not yet. So do you draft one of the kids, knowing you might not get the veteran you want, and knowing you still might not have much time to get that quarterback ready to play at any time in 2011?

I am pleased Peter spared us all this talk about the labor situation. That's the last time I will say it, I promise...maybe.

This is a topic for another week, but few teams are as wounded by this weird year as the ones with new coaches looking for long-term quarterbacks. For now, I'm going to give you what I consider a realistic top of the draft -- realistic because I'm not only going to consider what makes sense for the teams, but also in many cases I'm assigning players to teams based on who can play early, and who can play well early.

So basically look for a maximum of two of these picks ending up being correct.

1. Carolina. Da'Quan Bowers, DE, Clemson. I agree with my buddy Don Banks, who had Bowers here in his latest mock. I think the Panthers will be sorely tempted to go quarterback here, and may well do that. But another mulligan of a season, I think, is too much for Jerry Richardson to take, and you're almost consigning yourself to a mulligan by picking a quarterback if there's no new CBA 'til September.

Meanwhile leaving Jimmy Clausen at the starting quarterback position leaves the Panthers in perfect position to make the Super Bowl? If there is no free agency and the Panthers can't get a quarterback, how is keeping Clausen as the starter not taking a mulligan on a season? I'm not saying the Panthers should draft a quarterback, just saying that drafting a defensive end won't help to make the 2011 season not a mulligan.

Having said that, do not be surprised, at all, if Carolina picks Blaine Gabbert here. He's the kind of guy I've seen fly up draft boards in past seasons.

Do not be surprised at all if Blaine Gabbert goes #1 overall. Be very fucking surprised. That means at least 10 other top NFL prospects either died or quit playing football completely. That's the only way I see Blaine Gabbert going #1 overall.

(Of course, I write this and then I hear the Panthers may select Gabbert. Whatever. It is a smoke screen. They have specifically said they want a quarterback that can toss the ball downfield and that isn't exactly Gabbert's strength.)

2. Denver. Patrick Peterson, CB, LSU. Elvis Dumervil and Robert Ayers return healthy, so the front seven won't be a disaster. Peterson's a franchise corner who John Fox can pair with Champ Bailey from opening day.

Dumervil and Ayers will both be transitioning to the 4-3 defense, so I wouldn't just say the front seven won't be a disaster. Knowing John Fox like I do, I don't think Patrick Peterson is this pick. John Fox prefers his corners to play 15-20 yards off the receiver (I am exaggerating) so there isn't a need for a Patrick Peterson-type corner. I will do a mock draft at some point, but Peterson is a great pick, but not a pick John Fox would want to make. I don't see it happening.

In related "Bengoodfella was right and Woody Paige can suck it" news...Kyle Orton is the Broncos starter. Things may change, but they won't. If the Broncos want Tebow to play, they will trade Orton. When Woody Paige claimed Tebow was the guy I knew he was crazy to think this with Orton still in Denver. I love being right.

5. Arizona. Blaine Gabbert, QB, Missouri. Of all the picks I'm making here in this top 10, I feel best about this one. Cards need a quarterback with singular dedication and focus, and they'll find Gabbert's their guy.

As long as Gabbert doesn't have to throw deep or accurately, he will be a perfect fit for the Cardinals. I kid of course. Blaine Gabbert can throw deep (his career-high completion percentage was 63.6% this year). The difference (in my mind) between Chase Daniel and Blaine Gabbert is that Gabbert "looks" like a quarterback and Daniel didn't, plus Gabbert has the quarterback "pedigree" being the #1 quarterback in his class. For sake of comparison, Daniel's lowest completion percentage as a full-time starter was 63.5. I am not a fan of Gabbert.

(It is slightly possible I am still bitter Gabbert de-committed from Nebraska to go to Missouri)

6. Cleveland. A.J. Green, WR, Georgia. One of the most pro-ready receivers to come out in a while. The Browns have not a soul on the offense side of the ball to strike fear -- or even slight trepidation -- into foes. And remember one thing: The 2001 Seahawks, with Mike Holmgren running the draft, had needs all over the roster when they picked number nine in the first round. They bypassed Dan Morgan, Casey Hampton and Jeff Backus, all at positions of need (Backus to pair with Walter Jones), to pick a big wide receiver, Koren Robinson.

So Peter is assuming based on that stupid move, Mike Holmgren would do this again? Did it work so damn well the first time Holmgren just has to repeat his decision? I think a receiver is the right choice here, but to base the decision on Holmgren's first round selection of a receiver that was a bad decision isn't solid reasoning.

10. Washington. Ryan Mallett, QB, Arkansas. Mike Shanahan's a dice-roller at quarterback, as you know. In the last eight years, he's gambled with Jake Plummer, Jay Cutler and Donovan McNabb -- and I believe he would have drafted Sam Bradford even after acquiring McNabb last year if the Rams hadn't taken Bradford

This has to happen. I want to see Ryan Mallett and Mike Shanahan to work together. I want the Redskins to pick Mallett.

Newton, 6-5 and 248 pounds, looked to be in perfect shape for his on- and off-field job interviews here. One NFC GM, watching him being weighed and measured, said, "I was hoping Carolina wasn't in the room. I want that guy in the AFC.''

I love when any sportswriter quotes an anonymous scout around NFL Draft time. This time of year you can't take anything a person says seriously, whether they say it anonymously or publicly. It is all about jockeying for the player you want. This NFC GM may be telling the truth or he may be full of shit and wants Newton to be in the NFC so Carolina can draft what he perceives as a bust quarterback. You can't trust anyone, so why trust any quotes?

He ran a speedy (for a quarterback) 4.58 40-yard dash but was off-target while adjusting to some newness, like taking snaps from center and dropping back and throwing.

Here's a quick rundown of what was "new" to Cam Newton:

1. Taking snaps under center.

2. Dropping back and throwing a pass.

Sounds like this guy is going to make a hell of a quarterback provided he can play from the shotgun and doesn't have to throw a pass. Hey, I'm glad he ran really fast though. That will come in handy when Newton drops back and then takes off running because he isn't confident enough to pass the ball or read an NFL defense.

(I like zero of the quarterbacks in this NFL Draft in the first round...not sure if you can tell. Second round? Yes. First round? No. Maybe I just hate rookie quarterbacks. That's always possible.)

And I've never heard any GM on draft day say, "Yeah, we downgraded that quarterback because he threw poorly at the combine.'' Teams interested in Newton will dissect his game and work him out before the draft.

My biggest concern with Cam Newton, and this is something (not shockingly) Peter fails to focus on this sufficiently in my mind, is that he is going from an Auburn offense where he was required to make 1-2 reads in the offense and then he would either run or do whatever it is he did. Anyone who watched a couple Auburn games could see this.

In Peter's mailbag for this week an Auburn fan defends Newton saying he went through his progressions as the season went along, but I don't think the statistics of how many times Newton threw the ball as opposed to running it bears this out. I am concerned with him going through his progressions in the NFL. It is something I have seen Jimmy Clausen struggle with and I am not doubting Cam Newton can do it, he just hasn't really had to yet.

The knock on Newton is that, like Tim Tebow, he often looked to be a one-read quarterback who would take off running if his first man were covered, and because he's so athletically gifted, when he'd take off, good things would happen. He knows when he takes off in the NFL he might get his block knocked off eventually.

Peter mentions this, but this is easily my biggest question with Newton. It isn't about him running or getting hit hard for me. It is about him reading the defense considering the college offense he came from.

A few of you, some angrily, have asked for the story behind the tweet that launched a thousand reactions the other day -- this stand-alone quote from Cam Newton: "I see myself not only as a football player, but an entertainer and icon.''

Here's the part where Peter King "explains" why Newton said what he did. Essentially, Peter wants to make sure we all know how out-of-context the quote was taken so that he can stay on Newton's good side and get interviews down the road, as well as a possible personal relationship where they can go to dinner. After Newton retires, if he's lucky, Peter will help advocate him for the Hall of Fame.

(That last part was a joke...maybe)

I'll explain.

Because that is Peter's job as Newton's publicist of course.

A publicist for Under Armour, the outfitter that signed Newton to an endorsement contract, called me to say the company had Newton available to speak to four members of the media for 15 minutes each. Since I was going to write about Newton at the combine (I didn't know what exactly, and I didn't know if it would be for the magazine or for this column), I said yes. And so I spent 15 minutes on the phone with Newton Tuesday.

I don't remember my exact question, but it was something about what he expected the deal to do for him. And he said one of the things he wanted to stress was that he saw himself not only as a football player, but also an entertainer and icon.

So basically Newton did say the quote exactly and he was referring to exactly what we thought he was referring to? Simply because the quote came from an interview set up by Under Armour doesn't mean anything. Newton DID say he saw himself as an entertainer and icon. I don't know of a way Peter can spin this one.

I thought if anyone else in the lineup asked him about the Under Armour deal, he'd probably say the same "entertainer and icon'' thing. I didn't want to make a news story out of it, but I did want to get it out that he'd told me this, so I sent it out to my 510,000 followers on Twitter.

This is something Peter absolutely should have done. I'm glad he did.

Reaction was swift, and negative. One of his representatives called the next day to tell me, basically, that I'd sabotaged Newton just before the combine, and it was going to damage him, and if I'd written this as part of a larger story with context, no one would have seen the quote as very troublesome. I told him you're kidding yourself; if this were in a long story about combine prep and the deal with Under Armour, the media at large would have plucked out the quote and run with it the exact same way. And teams would have wondered about Newton's commitment to the game. How does the context of the quote change the impact? To me, not at all.

I tricked everyone. Sorry. You have to admit it is a shock that Peter didn't back up Newton or change his quote around like he did for Roger Goodell (in discussing Ben Roethisberger and his teammates opinion of him) a month ago. Peter did not back down or make excuses here. Good for him. It's almost like this guy tried to cut in front of him for the elevator. Peter is on the war path and he is an athlete!

On NFL Network Sunday, Newton said of our conversation: "My response was, I view myself as that due to the fact that I'm not only going to just be selling football cleats, I'm going to be selling lifestyle apparel -- everything else ... I could have picked way more [different] words to express what I really wanted to say. I want to personally apologize to everybody who was offended about it."

I really don't want to bash Cam Newton, but no one was offended about it. Even Newton's canned apology was a little off for my liking. No one was offended by the quote. It was an interesting quote to come from an NFL player about how he considered himself an entertainer and icon. What's interesting is that, yes, a quality quarterback does become that, but he isn't supposed to just come out and say it. So to say people were offended is just not correct. People were surprised Newton was honest.

You think Peyton Manning doesn't want to be an entertainer and icon? Then why does he do Saturday Night Live and 50 commercials per year? Hell yes, he wants to be an entertainer and icon, but he doesn't come out and say it. That's what shocked me. Tom Brady wants to be an entertainer and an icon, but he doesn't say it because then people will question his commitment to football. Hell, Tom Brady married a supermodel and that caused people to question his commitment to football.

He's such a great prospect, with charisma to match, that I expect him to get picked very high, as high as number one, to Carolina.

As high as number one, but no higher than that.

I don't like what this portends for the Vikings. A rebuilding offense needs receivers who can help a developing quarterback, and losing a 6-4 emerging star (again, provided he's healthy) would be a big blow. There will be plenty of young, interested teams with cap room -- Tampa Bay and Kansas City at the head of the pack -- if there's a cap, as most people assume there will be in a new labor landscape. He'd be a perfect young catch for the Patriots too.

Ah yes, it is that time of the year when Peter links every single free agent player to the New England Patriots. If there is a free agent, Peter King will link you in some fashion to the Patriots. Hell, you don't have to be a free agent. You can be in the draft or just walking down the street perhaps. Peter did this last year with Tim Tebow because only Bill Belichick was smart enough to figure out the best way to use Tebow. It isn't officially the offseason until Peter has linked a player to the Patriots in some fashion. Whether it be Julius Peppers, Tim Tebow or Sidney Rice, it will happen.

It doesn't make sense for Rice to go back to an uncertain future if he can go somewhere with a solid quarterback on a team that's not rebuilding.

Is Minnesota rebuilding? They don't have a quarterback, but other than that I am not sure they rebuilding at all. Maybe someone should tell the Vikings they are rebuilding because I am not sure they are aware of this.

I've had lots of questions in the past few days about the insane franchise-tagging going in the last few days. And while I can't defend the Miami Dolphins committing $12.48 million to a nose tackle, Paul Soliai, or the Panthers giving a center, Ryan Kalil, $10.1 million for one season, it's clear why they did it.

So is giving these two players (who can still sign long-term contracts by the way and not play out this franchise tag) a bad idea? Kalil is a Pro Bowl center and one of the top 5 players at his position, aren't these the type of players who should be franchised by a team? That's why the franchise tag was even put into existence.

(It drives me crazy. One minute the media is labeling Carolina cheap and the next minute they aren't cheap enough. Homer talk is now done.)

Jake Locker is one of the most intriguing prospects in the draft, and he continued to prove it Sunday by running one of the fastest times ever by a high-round quarterback (4.52 seconds in the 40) in years. But there's one thing that's going to be very hard for him to outrun: his accuracy. Or lack thereof. In 40 career games at the University of Washington, Locker completed 65 percent or better of his throws five times.

In his last 40 games in the NFL, Drew Brees has completed 65 percent or better 25 times.

I am not a Jake Locker fan at all (though with this weak class of quarterbacks I think he may end up being the best one), but this has to be one of the worst comparisons ever. Peter is comparing a college quarterback's completion percentage to the completion percentage of one of the NFL's best quarterbacks. Compare Brees/Locker during college, that is fair, but there is no absolutely no way to fairly compare a college quarterback on his statistics in college and an NFL quarterback on his statistics as a veteran in the NFL. This comparison is not only ridiculous, but ridiculously unfair to Locker.

In the lobby of Conseco Fieldhouse, the Starbucks is out and Dunkin' Donuts in. What were you thinking, Seattle?

That Dunkin' Donuts' coffee is much better than Starbucks and this should be acknowledged?

And for those dreading a Super Bowl here? Don't. It's one of the most convenient cities in America. You'll be able to walk everywhere outside on a decent day, and inside on the skywalks on a bad day. Good restaurants. Maybe not enough of them, but you'll find some good meals here.

Let's move ahead 11 months to when Peter King is complaining about the Indianapolis traffic, the hotels that are overcrowded and how he couldn't get a quick meal at his favorite restaurant. It will happen people, don't let Peter tell you otherwise.

"The NFL combine is 1 of the most overrated events n sports. When they get a drill that measures heart, I'll pay attention.''

--@chrisharrisnfl, Bears safety Chris Harris, who did not attend the combine before being drafted by Chicago in the sixth round in 2005.

They do measure heart. That's what the physical is for.

In seriousness, the Combine is overrated and it does not measure the exact size of a person's heart (though Tim Tebow holds the unofficial record for having the largest heart. It is 10 feet wide and 5 feet long. His entire body is simply heart with some skin around it). The Combine does measure some player's heart though. Like when players show up unprepared or overweight to the Combine. It's like a test for the players. It doesn't tell us everything about that person, but it tells us what that person can do when he is prepared, and if he doesn't prepare that tells us something else all together.

That's exactly why postseason physical performances and tests should be 10 percent maximum of a player's final grade. In many cases it should be much, much less, meaning I wouldn't put a lot of stock in Cam Newton air-mailing a few passes over the heads of receivers Sunday.

There is a difference in a quarterback that can't hit receivers with passes and a running back who doesn't run "fast enough" to be in the NFL. Newton's passes shouldn't be taken as dictating his entire future in the NFL, but whether Foster ran fast enough is a subjective analysis on the part of a scout, while Newton not completing passes goes more to his skill set as a quarterback and how that skill set will transfer to the NFL. A running back who can't run superfast can still be a great running back, but a quarterback who can't complete passes accurately isn't going to be a great quarterback.

4. I think, and I'm actually pretty sure of it, that Nick Fairley will not be the first pick in the draft. I'm trusting Someone Who Knows And Who Has Been Correct About A Lot Of Things In The Past Year on this. He knows who he is, and he's adamant Fairley won't go one.

I love these type of statements. I know Peter can reveal who this guy is, but this statement essentially means absolutely nothing to the average fan. We don't know who Peter is talking about and suspicious fans like me doubt this person has been right about a lot of things in the past year since no proof of this is given. So I chalk this up to the same crap as anonymous GM who says something. The perceived value of a person's statement based on the value of that person's previous statements isn't overly impressive to me if I don't know what his previous statements actually were.

9. I think if I were Jim Harbaugh and Trent Baalke, I'd be strongly considering a good puzzle piece for my defense in this draft -- and then make a call to Mike Brown for Palmer when the market opens up, whenever that is. I'd love to see Palmer in the West Coast scheme, especially with a smart guy like Harbaugh at the helm. I don't think Palmer would miss Ohio for a second.

I'm not entirely convinced Ohio would miss Palmer either. Palmer could thrive in a West Coast offense, but he could also look the exact same as he has in Cincinnati. I am really excited that Jim Harbaugh has been granted "smart guy" status by the media before he has coached one NFL game. Nothing against him, because he turned Stanford around, but the history of successful college coaches succeeding in the NFL as well is not a long history. I'm sure Harbaugh is a smart guy, but I feel like he has been granted this status a bit early in terms of succeeding in the NFL.

d. And I can't thank you enough, Scotty's Brewhouse,

Peter has just thanked an inanimate object. What's next? Ideas? Air particles? Theories?

"I thank you yet again oxygen. Without you, we would all die. Thank you plants. We need you to breathe as well. I would also like to tip my hat to gravity. Without you, we would all just be floating around. I also saw a brick building today that was blue. Thank you brick building, you have changed the way I see the world."

f. From reading the dispatches from Florida, sounds like the Red Sox already won 105 games and are a cinch for the World Series.

Team beat writers sounded optimistic about that team's upcoming season. That's a first isn't it? Unless you count every other team beat writer talking positively about every other MLB team right now. It's Spring Training. Reality hasn't set in quite yet for some teams.

You deserved the Oscar, Melissa Leo, but America would have cheered louder for Hailee Steinfeld ...

Melissa Leo, no one likes you. Also, apparently Peter cheers while he watches the Oscars. This is more disturbing than interesting.

"I've a feeling my career has just peaked,'' Colin Firth said after winning Best Actor. Heck of a pick ...

I'm sorry, I fell asleep just thinking about "The King's Speech." If that movie looked any more boring it would be called "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button." I watched that movie 9 months ago and I am still not sure if it has ended yet.

The top five awards -- movie, actor, actress, supporting actor, supporting actress -- all went to the favorites. So happy for The King's Speech.

Yes, Peter is happy for a movie. That's Peter King for you.

"Great job 'A King's Speech,' you worked so hard to get where you are today. I remember when you were just a movie in pre-production, but now you are a full complete movie that has won Best Picture. I'm taking you out for ice cream, 'A King's Speech' and I won't accept 'no' as an answer."