MMQB Review: Don't Make Peter King Get His Followers to Bankrupt Hertz! Edition

There may be a lockout, with no end in sight, but Peter King is still writing his MMQB...with no end in sight. Yes, there may be no NFL games on the horizon, but this doesn't mean Peter King has stopped writing his weekly NFL column. Even if there is no NFL news, it doesn't matter. MMQB really wasn't about the NFL anyway. It was about interviews with players, Peter's complaints about traveling, Peter's observations about the world and it was a forum for Peter to take his frustrations out on corporations who have drawn his ire. So MMQB is essentially just without the player interviews and quotes at this point, which isn't necessarily a bad thing.

The last time I swung a golf club was a year ago, at the 2010 Tom Coughlin Jay Fund Celebrity Golf Classic, in which, I'm sure, I was the worst golfer on the famed Stadium Course at Sawgrass.

In an alternate world where Peter King is a good golfer and someone else is a terrible golfer, Good Golfer Peter King would use this space to complain the terrible golfer shouldn't be on the Stadium Course at Sawgrass and should probably work on his/her game at a different place. Because we live in this world and Peter King is (as he reports) a terrible golfer, it is fine for him to play on a nice course and be terrible at golf...because he doesn't have Good Golfer Peter King criticizing him.

If everyone remembers the last time I covered MMQB, Peter stated he was going to try to keep the lockout talk to a minimum. Naturally, he lead off his next two MMQBs with tidbits about the lockout. When Peter says he isn't going to do something, immediately look for him to do that one thing.

'' We're headed for a period of nuclear winter for the next four or five weeks. There's no pressure on either side to move. There hasn't been any pressure since the March 11 deadline, which, not so coincidentally, is the last time either side made any sort of tangible move in the talks. That's 73 days without any real progress.

A part of me hopes the NFL stays locked out for two more months and then when the league and the players finally decide they should get a deal done, few people show up to the games and ratings plummet. The realistic part of me knows this won't happen at all. I would be first in line to go to NFL games and watch the games on television. The NFL and the player's union will probably agree on a deal, probably the same one they could have agreed to back in early April if both sides weren't too busy posturing, on August 31st and the season will start after that and the public (including myself) will be happy and forget all the anger we have at this stupid lockout. Right now though, I have frustration at no agreement having been reached and very little negotiating actually taking place.

I don't expect anything to happen until the three-judge appeals panel rules whether the NFL can continue to lock out the players, and by all accounts, that decision won't come until late June, at the earliest.

Can we get a judge to rule the two sides have until June 15 to come to an agreement? Would that be possible? We all know the NFL season is going to start in some form or fashion at some point, can't an agreement be reached now? I really feel like both sides could come to an agreement, but they feel better that they fought for what they wanted more strenuously if they let it drag on and on.

I respect Ray Lewis, and I also do not travel in his circles.

(whispers) Peter means to say that he is a white person while Ray Lewis is not white.

I don't know who has told Lewis the crime rate by the general populace in America is going to go up if there's no pro football this fall, but someone has, and he's buying it. Lewis told Sal Paolantonio of ESPN: "If we don't have a season, watch how much evil, which we call crime, watch how much crime picks up,'' he said. When SalPal asked why, Lewis said: "There's nothing else to do.''

Perhaps this is part of the problem with both sides. NFL fans do enjoy football and really want to see football. They can't imagine people would have something else to do besides watch the NFL. Perhaps both the owners and the players really don't think there is anything else to do during the Fall if there isn't football on, and therefore, because their huge egos tell them this they think there is no way a person could used to not watching football. It's very egotistical reasoning. People have other things they can do rather than watch football.

I want the NFL season to start, but here's what I will do without an NFL season. Instead of doing all the things I need to do on the weekend BEFORE my favorite team plays, I will just do those things at my leisure and perhaps build the weekend around college football. I want the NFL, but what kind of egotistical asshole thinks people are going to be wandering the streets like zombies with nothing to do without the NFL? Sure, many people will miss it, but the time will be replaced somehow.

It's a nice headline, but I'm not buying it. I suppose it could happen, but unless we get burglars and thieves saying they did it because the NFL wasn't on TV on fall Sundays this year, I'm not buying what Lewis is selling.

As well you shouldn't. I find it hard to believe a person who is bored and wants to commit crimes doesn't commit crimes Monday through Saturday because of the anticipation for Sunday. Does crime escalate the week between the NFC and AFC Championship games and the Super Bowl? There's no football games that week.

Ray Lewis has left the park with this statement. People love to watch NFL football. Believe it or not, their lives nor their livelihood won't be changed incredibly if the NFL season doesn't start on time. They will be temporarily saddened, but will find a way to fill the void. Those people who chose to commit crimes may end up committing more crimes during the time they would normally watch football, but I don't know if I see people turning to a life of crime without the NFL. You know whose lives and livelihood will be changed? The owner's and player's lives.

I'm prejudiced, obviously, because I had a good working relationship with Dick Ebersol, chairman of NBC Sports Group, who parted company with his new bosses at Comcast, stunningly, last Thursday. He was a very good boss. A unique boss.

A lofty boss. A boss of nobility and ideals. A man's whose name slightly does sound like the word "aerosol."

Now, not everyone is going to have the same memories as I have, because bosses in billion-dollar businesses have to be, well, bosses sometimes. I think what made him good -- and what will make him good again -- is his curiosity. Everything interested him. So I thought I'd ask a few people who knew him well in the business in the past few years for an observation or two about what made Ebersol good.

That sounds great! I would love for a significant amount of space in MMQB to be dedicated to nuzzling the ass of a wealthy ex-NBC executive. I bet there is someone who had something negative to say! I would bet I would be wrong! Ebersol was just so great! Here are some quotes to prove it:

Roger Goodell, NFL commissioner: "Dick had this attitude that not a lot of people in the TV business have. It was, 'If we float all boats, it's good for everyone.' That's why you would see on the Thursday night kickoff game to start the season NBC plugging the FOX and CBS games the following Sunday.

Dick did always love plugging things.

Peyton Manning, Indianapolis quarterback: "The thing I always felt about Dick was he was all in.

Dick loves being all-in. We all knew that about him.

Also, why is Peyton Manning commenting on Dick Ebersol? Doesn't he have something better to do?

"The other thing about those production meetings: He'd have great gadgets for us every time. You know, flip video cameras, iPods, whatever. It got to the point where we [players] wondered,' What's Dick going to have for us this week?

Maybe I am confused. So Dick Ebersol gave the players gifts in the production meetings? I feel like this should violate something somewhere. Can you imagine the shit ESPN would get if it was found out one of their executives bought the Patriots diamond watches? Maybe I am misunderstanding this sentence.

John Madden, former Sunday night game analyst:

"I remember on one of our road trips, we're staying in the same hotel as the Boston Celtics. You look at the marquee at the hotel and it says, 'NBC, film session, 9 a.m.,' and 'Boston Celtics, film session, 10 a.m.' Doc Rivers is such a good friend of everyone. He told us, 'If you guys want to come over and watch with us, come on in.' So I'm all excited about that -- breaking down film with the Boston Celtics!

They most likely promised John Madden there would be snacks available. Then "BOOM!" John Madden was there in a flash.

Dick goes over a little bit early, and I go over there around 10, and there's one player in there -- that Big Baby guy.

John Madden was actually talking about Kevin Garnett, not Glen Davis.

They got all this food,

I told you they enticed John Madden with food.

"This isn't the last you'll hear of Dick Ebersol,'' Madden said.

Hopefully this is the last I hear of him in MMQB.

Remember Ken Dorsey?

That mediocre Miami Hurricanes QB who was surrounded by an incredible amount of talent and tricked everyone into thinking he was a quality quarterback? I think I remember him.

Interesting that he just finished eight days working with the first pick in the draft, Carolina quarterback Cam Newton, and they'll be back at it again today in Bradenton, Fla.

(Ken Dorsey) "Here's what you do Cam. You find a way to get the best players at each position on your team to play with you. Then, you play quarterback. It's that easy."

(Cam Newton) "Am I getting paid for this?"

(Ken Dorsey) "Not yet."

(Cam Newton leaves the field)

Newton was able to get a Carolina playbook, with Panthers offensive coordinator Chudzinski's encyclopedic offense, to take with him during the lockout. Dorsey spent last week instructing Newton in the finer points of the offense, in addition to telling him the expectations and coaching methods of Chudzinski.

(Cam Newton) "What's this line on either side of the offensive linemen?"

(Ken Dorsey) "Those are your two wide receivers."

(Cam Newton) "Wow, there are TWO wide receivers on each pass pattern in the NFL? This is going to be a big transition for me. Can we practice the quarterback draw play again? Do you think Coach Chud will be able to run this play for me 65% of the time?"

It sounds smart and valuable. Compared to the other highly drafted quarterbacks, Newton ought to be as advanced as he can be when the lockout ends. How important will that be?

I don't know, Peter. Generally it is important for you quarterback to know the offense.

We'll see, because there's going to be a tremendous amount of pressure on the Panthers to play Newton early.

Not really. The Panthers could always put Jimmy Clausen back there, lower the fans expectations a bit, then put Cam Newton in the game. I don't know if anyone expects Newton to be ready to start at the beginning of the year.

You really need to read this story.

Let's skip this part.

Saw longtime and well-respected football writer Vito Stellino's Twitter take on the curbing of offseason programs due to the lockout this spring. I liked it well enough that I asked the former Steeler glory-days beat man, now with the Florida Times-Union covering the Jaguars, to expand his thoughts for MMQB. Here they are:

Is it going to make any difference that the lockout is wiping out the NFL's offseason program?

Eagles coach Andy Reid recently said the less practice time a team has (because of the lockout), "the worse the product. We don't do those minicamps, those OTAs, and all those sessions just for the heck of it. There is a reason why we have those things ... We try to get the utmost out of it.''

Reid may not realize -- he's only been coaching in the NFL since 1992 -- that the real reason for these things is Parkinson's Law. Work expands to fill the time available for its completion.

They have these things because the players make so much money that they don't work in the offseason and are available to practice.

Yes, this is true. Also, the Eagles have a new defensive coordinator this season so the fact the players aren't available to be in minicamps could slow up his ability to integrate what new wrinkles he wants to incorporate into the defense. So it may be nice for him to be able to do this. Minicamps aren't the most crucial part of playing football, but I think they have value in that they keep the players engaged and help to integrate new players on the team faster.

As recently as the 1970s, there were no offseason workouts. Teams had one minicamp an offseason. Tony Dungy even worked in a Pittsburgh bank after he signed as an undrafted free agent in 1977.

Some NFL players have taken jobs during this lockout. I don't get the point. It's better for a player to take another job than to focus on the one job he does have?

And Terry Bradshaw used to talk about not picking up a ball in the offseason.

Clearly not picking up a ball in the offseason is what led him to his great ability to have an incredible team around him that made him look a lot better than he actually was.

What this guy doesn't seem to understand is there wasn't free agency in Terry Bradshaw's playing days. Players move from team-to-team more often, so it becomes more important for these new players to be integrated into the team earlier than Training Camp.

And maybe the players were more refreshed after having an offseason away from the game. All these offseason workouts may just wear down their bodies.

Perhaps. Maybe the players would get out of shape in the offseason if there weren't offseason workouts? Maybe no one noticed this in Terry Bradshaw's time because every team had players come into games slightly out of shape. Maybe if one team didn't have offseason workouts and the players became lazy and out of shape everyone would probably notice this.

Did the product suffer because of the lack of offseason workouts? You can argue the players are bigger, faster and stronger today and it is a more sophisticated game. But was it any better for the fans?

I would argue it is better for the fans. I am pretty sure the attendance, television ratings and overall popularity show that fans really, really, really enjoy the NFL. So yes, it is better for the fans today, or at least the fans seem to enjoy the NFL more than they did back in "the good old days."

Remember in the 1970s, two Super Bowls in four years pitted Bradshaw vs. Roger Staubach.

Remember, this has absolutely nothing to fucking do with offseason workouts. The last two Super Bowls pitted Manning v. Brees and Rodgers v. Roethlisberger...which also has nothing to do with offseason workouts.

Not to mention, the overall popularity of the NFL isn't decided or measured based on the skill level of the two quarterbacks that end up going against each other in the Super Bowl. It's not like the NFL sucks if two teams with average or above-average quarterbacks make the Super Bowl.

Yes, the offseason workouts -- combined with free agency and cable TV -- have kept the NFL in the news all year round and helped make the game more popular than ever. And that has meant football writers don't have to cover things like golf the way they used to. I know you can't live in the past, but I would debate the game isn't any better for the fans. Too bad Andy Reid was only a teenager in the 1970s. He would understand the NFL did just fine without OTAs and offseason programs.

The NFL may do fine without OTAs and offseason programs. I'm not sure I would doubt this is true. I would say if some teams did OTAs and other teams did not, the teams that did the OTAs may be more successful during the upcoming season. These offseason workouts make sure the players are still engaged with the team and aren't letting themselves go during the offseason. The offseason programs and OTAs are a way of evaluating players and letting the team develop some chemistry by limiting the time away from the game and the team.

"It would have forever severed the players of the NFL from a fair share of the revenue.''
-- NFL Players Association executive director DeMaurice Smith, to Brian McGovern and Maurice Jones-Drew on their Sirius XM NFL Radio show, on the last offer owners made to players, March 11.

Well, I guess. But it's hard to imagine the NFL offer -- $161 million per year per team in salary and benefits in year four of the proposal with no backside if the NFL's revenue estimates were higher than projected (when the players wanted $161 million per year per team PLUS backside revenue) -- was so monumentally, impossibly difficult to bridge. It's why I maintain that the difference between the two sides is not so great that some real negotiations couldn't bridge the gap.

Unfortunately, it doesn't look like either side is dedicated to doing some real negotiations. It's rather annoying.

Peter also displays the fact he seems to side with the owners when refuting this statement made by DeMaurice Smith. There was no backside in year four of the proposal if the NFL's revenues were higher than projected, but what are the odds the owners would admit to revenues being higher than projected? These are the same owners who are claiming they don't make enough money as it is now. The players want that backside revenue guaranteed because they (possibly rightly) know they won't see that money if it isn't guaranteed.

Mr. Starwood Preferred Member Travel Note of the Week I

Oh yes, this is Travel Note of the Week I...because there are two things that pissed Peter off this week.

Hertz Should Be Ashamed of Itself Dept.:

I rented a full-sized Hertz vehicle for my two-day trip to North Carolina and the National Sportscasters and Sportswriters Awards. Two days, $44 a day. Drove the car 169 miles. The tank read 5/8ths when I pulled into the Charlotte Douglas International Airport's Hertz lot at 5:35 a.m. Tuesday.

"Did you fill the tank with gas?'' the courteous check-in gal asked.

"No, sorry,'' I said.

She noted the mileage and handed me the receipt.

The receipt for charges of $249.31.2

The gas for driving less than a half-tank cost more ($89.40) than renting the car for two days, minus taxes ($88). Hertz charged $8.99 per gallon for refueling. That seems fair (he said sarcastically).

Yes, Hertz is charging WAY too much for gas. It's ridiculous to charge $8.99 for refueling. Still, Peter is a guy who travels a lot, as seen by the fact he bitches and whines every week in MMQB about things that happen when he travels. Peter should know to fill the car back up with gas before turning it in. If he had done this, he could have completely avoided the charge at $8.99 per gallon for refueling. So while Peter has a point about the price, he can't bitch because he made the decision not to fill the car back up with gas.

Three-eighths of a tank of gas for $89.40? If that's not price-gouging, I don't know what is.

I am not sure this is exactly price gouging. Peter could have purchased a cheaper, comparable product on the way to turn the rental car in and he chose not to. So he had options and he chose not to take those options, so I am not sure this is exactly price gouging. There weren't really limited options nor was Peter in a situation where the only gas he could purchase was at the $8.99 rate. He could have filled up his car for half of the price and chose not to. Yes, Hertz charges a lot for gas, but as a veteran traveler Peter King should know to put gas in the car himself so he can avoid the excessive charge. I don't know if I would count this as price gouging.

For example, if I am thirsty and I pass up gas stations that offer a 32 oz soda for $0.99 and then choose to go to Applebee's and purchase a drink, should I really be bitching they charge me $1.99 for a glass of soda? I had comparable options and chose not to take them. That's not exactly price gouging.

Hip To Be Square Dept.:

I will never get used to a person at 9:58 a.m. -- as happened Sunday in the row in front of me on a Boston-to-Washington United flight -- saying to the flight attendant with the beverage cart coming down the aisle: "Two Stolis on the rocks. No water.'' And then, by 10:13, both of the little vodka bottles, and the plastic cup, empty but for the ice. Vodka shots are something I can't do at 11 at night, never mind when Cheerios should be on the tray table.

As we all know, if a person doesn't live their life the exact same way Peter King lives his life, that makes them weird. Maybe this person was afraid of flying and required a few drinks to relax them before the plane gets too far in the air? Maybe this person had another reason for wanting a drink. Still, Peter lives to sit in judgment. He seems to essentially stare down people in public while they go about their lives, like he does to people on trains he rides on. What's really weird is that Peter will pay attention and take notes on what other people are doing while traveling. He should mind his own business and find something to do, rather than stare at what other people drink or do while traveling.

5. I think some clarity is in order for Hall of Fame Weekend in August. It's happening. Regardless of the state of the labor situation, the 2011 class will be inducted on Aug. 6 at 7 p.m. in Canton. Can't wait to see Ed and Steve Sabol and their extended family and friends that weekend. Promises to be an emotional and memorable weekend.

It is a big weekend for Peter King as well. Peter was responsible for advocating Ed Sabol be inducted into the Hall of Fame and somehow got enough members in the room to vote for him. As we have discussed prior, Sabol did have an impact on the NFL, but I don't know if there was a reason to put him in the Hall of Fame when there are eligible and worthy NFL players who could have made it instead. Of course, Peter will insist up and down he doesn't have as much pull among Hall of Fame voters as many people, Jason Whitlock included, seem to think. I believe the fact Ed Sabol made the Hall of Fame proves otherwise.

10. I think these are my non-football thoughts of the week:

a. To those who hate interleague play in baseball: I respectfully disagree.

In your face, haters!

The biggest complaint is from those who have no desire to see Houston-Toronto, Detroit-Pittsburgh, etc. Fine. You're in Toronto. Instead of getting three with the Astros, you'd get -- let's say -- three more with Kansas City, Oakland or Seattle. Whoopee!

"Fine, let me make up a fake scenario to prove my point where I pick three of the worst draws in Major League Baseball and then say that's who your team would face instead of the Astros."

What if Toronto would get three more games with a team that was a bigger draw? Peter can't seem to fathom that would happen. I don't hate interleague baseball, I hate much of Peter's reasoning for defending interleague baseball.

There are some ho-hum matchups, but there's also the Cubs at Fenway for the first time in 93 years,

See, interleague baseball is good because it allows the Red Sox to have an interesting matchup. That's really what interleague play is about anyway. This is some great "Bill Simmons" like reasoning here. Interleague play isn't bad because it provides a good and interesting matchup for Peter's favorite team.

(Red Sox fan) "We're so fucking cursed."

(Cubs fan) "No, we're fucking cursed."

(Second Red Sox fan) "Everyone should feel so badly for us. We are so cursed and so many bad things have happened to us."

(Second Cubs fan) "No way, we had a curse put on us because of a billygoat. Remember Steve Bartman? We are so cursed forever! Everyone should have sympathy for us. Why don't more people feel bad for us because we have it so bad?"

If these interleague games happened in 2003 I am not sure I could have survived being in the crowd. It would have been like two fan bases whining at each other the entire game, completely ignoring the fact a game is being played. Needless to say, Dan Shaughnessy would write a book about it as well.

the Yanks at Wrigley Field, the good fans of Cincinnati getting a chance to see Jose Bautista in their little bandbox,

I know the entire city of Cincinnati is lining up to see Jose Bautista.

Albert Pujols taking his shot at an equally homer-friendly Camden Yards, Roy Halladay's return to Toronto,

(Bengoodfella falling asleep)

the Red Sox throwing the fans of the woebegone Pirates a three-game weekend series.

The Red Sox being kind enough, out of the goodness of their hearts, to come to Pittsburgh and bring some real joy to them. Not only do the Pirates get to play a team from the American League AT HOME, we all know the American League is clearly superior to the National League, but they get a chance FIRSTHAND to see actual Red Sox fans. It's going to probably the highlight of the calendar year for the entire city of Pittsburgh when the Red Sox dedicate some time to taking their great team and fans to the city of Pittsburgh.

Interleague play's a no-brainer. It's different. It's fun.

Drinking two vodka tonics on a plane is different and fun as well. Peter doesn't seem to like this kind of fun though.

c. Really fun to be in Fenway Park Friday night for the Cubs' first trip to the park since the 1918 World Series, when Babe Ruth roamed the land for the BoSox. Sat behind four Cub fans out in right field, and in front of two others who'd never been to Fenway and were Cub season-ticket holders. All very interested in Fenway, all seeming down-in-the-mouth about their Cubbies ... and all quite polite. Pleasure to have you in the house, Chicago.

Oh, and your welcome for the privilege of playing in Fenway Park AND getting to sit near Peter King.

f. Am I the only person in the United States who never watched Oprah?

Yes. This doesn't make you special though, so don't feel special.

k. Coffeenerdness: What a tremendously pleasant airport you have, Jacksonville. Two Starbucks about 10 gates apart too. Nice job.

Congratulations concrete, inanimate object. You have done well!

Great job of providing us with oxygen plants. You really carry a burden few could take on.

Sidewalks...why don't we ever have enough time to thank you?

Where would we be without your ladders? A heck of a lot closer to the ground, that's for sure!

l. Beernerdness: I've got a good bar for the craft-beer-nerd crowd. (And don't you dare call Blue Moon a craft beer on Twitter, which I made the unforgivable mistake of doing the other day. The craft-beer-nerd crowd jumped through the Twitterverse, into my laptop and right down my throat, indignant that Blue Moon's no craft beer; it's brewed by that evil empire out at Coors. Sheesh.)

Sheesh. How dare you craft-beer-nerds jump down Peter's throat and try to point out his factual incorrectness?

Can't Peter just continue to write something and not have someone point out he is wrong?