9 comments Scoop Jackson Stands Up For LeBron James

I have been holding onto this article for a while because it deals with the subject of race and sports. That's a subject I don't normally like to discuss because it tends to be a no-win discussion. I've made a slight exception today, but only because it is talking about race in the larger context of sports and because I feel the need to ramble about this issue. Scoop Jackson believes it is partially race that has caused fans to turn against LeBron James.

I look at it a different way. I am a sports fan, I don't care what color an athlete is or what he looks like. I hate players and teams simply for daring to exist in the same division or conference as my favorite teams and any reason I get to further dislike them I jump on. Let's say I hate Mike Vick. He dared to play for the Falcons who played well against the Panthers. I have a grudge against him for this sole reason, but now the dislike is kind of gone because he plays for the Eagles and isn't in the same division as the Panthers. I hated Keith Brooking (who hates him other than me? Probably no one.) because he played for the Falcons and I could not stand any Buccaneers player for a long while, specifically any Gramatica brother. I'm rambling, but LeBron played for the Cavs and they compete with my favorite NBA team. I don't like LeBron because of this, so when he left Cleveland for Miami to form a "super team" with Wade and Bosh, it gave me more reason to dislike LeBron on many different levels. I could dislike his decision to team up with other great players and form a championship or I could dislike the fact the Heat now have a good team and are in the Eastern Conference. I don't do this because he is black, but for purely sports reasons.

I understand the marketing aspect of sports. I don't understand outside of marketing why athletes have to be liked or have a high Q score. Does LeBron really care that he is hated? Should it matter to him? Why is it bad that people hate him? Part of sports is having players and teams that you hate no matter what...or until they play on your favorite team. This may go back to the whole "fans are more engaged in the competition part of sports as compared to athletes" issue, but LeBron's Q score may be taking a nose dive and I know that affects his marketing aspirations, but being hated is a part of sports. People may just hate him because he is successful and is probably going to be more successful in the future with the Heat. He's competition now for my favorite NBA team and I have to dislike him, Wade, and Bosh for that for the same reasons I will greatly dislike any good team in the Eastern Conference.

Maybe LeBron is disliked for racist reasons, not for me personally, but I am sure this is true for some. Rather than blame race completely though, maybe he is hated simply because he is one of the best players in the NBA and will play for a successful team this year. I'm rambling again...so basically I think the hatred for LeBron is being blamed too much on race by Scoop.

Seems like even when there's not a race issue there is a race issue in this country.

Or one created. I'm not saying there isn't an issue of race here, but LeBron being hated is much why some people hate the Yankees. Sports fans can greatly dislike the idea of a "super team" being built that is better than other teams. Falling back on the race issue is kind of lazy sometimes. LeBron is not in my good graces because he is a major competitor for my favorite team.

LeBron has not reached the Jordan/Oprah/Michael Jackson/Tiger Woods/Barack Obama (pre-Presidency) level of identification in which people do not think about his color, race or ethnicity when identifying with him.

This is a lie. How many jokes have been told over the years about Michael Jackson not being "black enough" along with jokes about his skin? Any discussion about Michael Jackson always ended up talking about his race in one form or another. All anyone could talk about Barack Obama before he was President is that he was black Presidential candidate. The reason many people don't think about Tiger Woods' race all the time is because even he doesn't define it.

Yet someone has to say what LeBron couldn't.

And as prophesied in the Bible and Koran, Scoop Jackson is that man.

When speaking to CNN last week about the role race has played in the overall reaction (nothing else) to his post-Cavaliers life, LeBron did nothing more than acknowledge the undercurrent to how he went from love to hate in the eyes of the public faster than any athlete in recent history who didn't break a law or a marriage vow.

Here is the issue I have with LeBron's comments and Scoop Jackson's followup...they both take one part of the possible explanation behind the some of the public's reaction and try to turn it into THE reason for the public's reaction. I don't think LeBron lost any fans, the fans who never really liked him when he was on the Cavs finally had something to bitch point to and say, "that's why this guy is an asshole. I always knew it." Some of the hate comes from jealousy and some of it comes from the fact LeBron James now plays for the "it" team in the NBA. I don't believe a large part of any of the reaction is because James is black.

Let's also please remember that the sports media shapes the discussions in this country. So LeBron's interpretation of how people don't like him comes partially from the media. He's read the reactionary and judgmental crap the media has written about him going to Miami and may believe this represents sports fans as a whole. Sports fans are really a different matter. If you believed the media, then Brett Favre would be beloved and the only two teams that have a shot at the NBA Title this year are Los Angeles and Miami. So while the media is shaping the discussions in this country, they are also shaping how players are perceived to be viewed by the public.

In almost every black person's life -- and most will tell you this -- there comes a time when we are reminded of who we are; more importantly, when we're reminded of the color of our skin. It's our gut check.

Like most bloggers, I am white. Pale white to where you can see through my skin. I don't pretend to speak for African Americans or any other race, religion or creed. I don't like it when people assume they know what I am thinking, which is part of what irritates me so much about Scoop Jackson. He assumes part of the reason I don't like LeBron James' decision to go Miami is because he is black, which isn't the truth. I don't like LeBron James because he plays on a competitive team in the Eastern Conference. I also don't like LeBron James because he is too good at basketball and his skill could affect my favorite team from winning the NBA Title this year. End of story.

It's not like moments of realizing who you are can be exclusive to one certain race. From my point of view, there are times when I am reminded of who I am, more importantly I am reminded of the color of my skin. This happens TO EVERY PERSON no matter what color their skin is. I was picked near to last in gym class in the 8th grade when splitting up basketball teams because I was a skinny white kid and the gym teacher put the two football players (who knew nothing about basketball or how to choose a team) as the captains. When time came around for new teams to be chosen later, I got picked much earlier, but it was assumed because I was skinny and white I couldn't play basketball. There are tons of sad stories where we can all feel bad for ourselves from everyone like this about when they have been reminded who they are. Some are obviously more severe than others, but at some point we all get a gut check with reality.

LeBron James was just reminded. The extreme nature of how many people responded to his "decision" and the way he handled it was his personal and professional gut check.

But this wasn't necessarily race driven. There are a number of reasons a person could have responded to LeBron's decision negatively. I think it is unfair to pigeonhole emotional sports fans like this.

The problem many people seem to have with that, in LeBron's mind, is not that he was reminded he is African-American, but that he had the audacity to acknowledge it.

This is exactly what I am talking about. Scoop can tell everyone who will listen that there are things LeBron James is going through that we can never understand, so don't try. Then he proceeds to tell everyone who has a thought on how they feel about LeBron leaving Cleveland exactly why they feel that way. Scoop won't let you think you know LeBron or why he went to Miami to play for the Heat, but Scoop feels free to think he knows you.

Does race play a role in why Eminem has sold more records and is more popular than Jay-Z? Did race have anything to do with the response to the people and areas affected by Hurricane Katrina?

I don't want to sound insensitive but...I understand the disaster that Hurricane Katrina was and I don't want to directly compare it to another natural disaster, but what about Nashville? Did race or the location of the state of Tennessee have anything to do with the lack of attention by the media and the government? Who really knows? It could be a valid question. Doesn't race or the area of the country where the natural disaster affect the response ANYTIME there is a natural disaster?

It all depends on who's being asked and who is answering.

This time, LeBron answered.

Which is fine, but it doesn't mean his perspective is the truth.

The best recent close-to-fair comparison that can be used to prove that race probably is a factor in all of this? Brett Favre. Favre has moved from team to team and kept the public in the dark about his status much more often and just as dramatically and significantly as LeBron did this one time.

Other than I read this article before I wrote about it, how did I know Scoop would bring up Brett Favre as an example of how white players are treated? I hate Brett Favre. Many, many people I know hate Brett Favre. This is a great example of a player whose reputation and his public persona are very much shaped by the media. I know very few people who like Favre, yet he seems as popular as ever. I can't explain it.

Favre feuds with his coach, takes the time to tell everyone how injured he is, doesn't accept responsibility or criticism for his mistakes and has generally put himself over the team. Why people like him, I don't know, but I don't think it has anything to do with the fact he is white, but has more to do with the fact he is a master at making people feel bad for him and like him.

Even using the Q Score as a barometer, Favre never took a hit equal or close to LeBron's.

And while confirming Favre's hold on popularity -- he was the 13th most popular figure in sports earlier this year in the company's research -- Schafer went on to say, "Based on our data, I think it's fair to say that [American sports fans] may be sick of the waffling, but not sick of him."

I don't know if using one of using Brett Favre as an example for why Americans are racist is a very good example. I am not sure anyone has an idea of why Brett Favre is so popular, other than there is a segment of the population that loves him. I don't think this comparison proves anything.

James, on the other hand, went from being one of the most popular and loved athletes alive to one of the most disliked in a matter of months.

As I stated several times above, I think this is a reaction to James joining up with a dominant team that is seen as having taken a shortcut to win a championship. Again, the same reason some people hate the Yankees is the reason these same people will dislike LeBron James.

After LeBron had made "The Decision," the Q score Wade and Bosh also took a dive. Wade's positive Q score went from 21 in January 2010 to 15 in September 2010 and his negative Q score went from 18 to 25. Bosh's positive Q score went from 13 to 12 and his negative Q score went from 21 to 35. I am sure Scoop would use this as further proof James, Bosh, and Wade are being persecuted by the racist public and media, but I see it as being a sign that many people view the act of these three players on the same team in a negative light, regardless of skin color. It could be seen that the public didn't like these three guys teaming up on the Heat and that, not skin color, was the reason their Q score went down.

If so, cool. But on the surface, on the basis of similar popularity and behavior, Favre and James are Siamese. Reflective images. Yet, somehow, LeBron's "behavior" was less acceptable than Brett's. While Favre's "waffling" is tolerated, James' decisiveness is unacceptable.

I can't explain the public's infatuation with Favre, though I don't think it has to do with race, but here are three reasons that may explain the difference in how James and Favre have been treated:

1. Part of the difference is that Favre has played in the NFL for nearly 20 years and is 40 years old, while James is 25 years old and hasn't been in the NBA for 10 years yet. Favre is older than James, so he has more history of goodwill with the public. Not with me of course, but with the public. Favre had been with the Packers so long and had pretty much done everything he could for the team, while James had been with the Cavs for a while, but not long enough to reach any of the goals the city expected of the team.

2. Favre left Green Bay when they already had a great quarterback and when he left he used his unique ability to play the martyr as a way to convince the public he was the one that was done wrong in nearly every situation. Favre's a magician. He can make the media feel bad for second guessing an interception he threw. Green Bay wasn't a terrible team after he left, they had Aaron Rodgers, and many people feel like Favre was done wrong by the Packers management. LeBron James left the city of Cleveland, which happens to be the state he was born in and played high school basketball in. LeBron James has had ties to Ohio his entire life and he left the team with very little talent on the roster. Favre wasn't a hometown hero like James was. Favre didn't leave on his own accord (though I think this is very arguable), while James did.

3. Favre was threatening to retire, while James was forming a dream team. If Scoop can't tell the difference in these two actions then I don't know what to tell him. The perception of Favre is that he can't decide whether to retire or not and many fans who don't like Favre don't want him to retire because they enjoy watching him play. The perception of James is that he left his lifelong home to chase a championship in Miami. It's the equivalent of selling out to many people. He left Ohio for the alcohol and sun-drenched streets of Miami to play with two other great NBA players. Not only was James turning his back on the state that loved him, his teammates the franchise worked hard (and unsuccessfully) to put around him, but he is going to a party city to join his top competition rather than compete AGAINST his top competition.

Bottom line is that many people can understand a struggle to do a job they love versus spend more time with their family, as opposed to relating to being a unique talent and joining the exact players on a quest for an NBA title you are supposed to be competing against for an NBA title. The situations each found themselves in are different and so was the public's reaction.

Because if race isn't one of the factors in why the reaction has been so extremely different between one non-white athlete (James) and one white athlete (Favre), then what is?

I wish Scoop would at least acknowledge the situations each athlete found themselves in are different. It's like he does whatever he can to make the deep connection to race in order to explain the difference.

And if LeBron is unable to answer a simple question about his feelings on whether race is a factor in his case without being vilified publicly (again), then where does the real racism reside? In his answer or in the response to it?

Whatever. Part of the public's reaction being negative towards James' comments was that the public doesn't like our thoughts and words presented to us by an athlete pretending to know us. It's fine if James believes that, but his feelings on the subject doesn't make it the truth. Simply because racism exists doesn't mean that was the reason behind the public's reaction to LeBron's "Decision."

It's unfair for LeBron to generalize everyone who has an opinion on this subject in this way. Sexism also exists but that isn't the reason few sports fans watch WNBA games. It's unfair to say "it's always a race factor" and hide behind how absolutely poorly the decision to leave Cleveland was handled so he can paint the media and public as racist.

Of course after he said the comments, James didn't want to talk about them too much more. So James wants to make the decision to go to Miami, hide behind racism as being why the fans don't like him, say he believes this to be the reason in an interview and then elaborate no further. As I said, I am sure racism played a part in some people's opinion of him, but I think this was a small minority. Many other people never liked LeBron or didn't like this decision to go to the Heat overall and dislike him based on that.

The recent extreme reaction to LeBron's CNN interview does more to validate his belief than any survey taken to measure someone's appeal.

This statement could not be further from the truth. LeBron James has given his opinion and now because the public and media disagrees with this opinion, it just further proves how racist everyone is? So basically agree with LeBron James the negative reaction to his move to Miami was based on race or it just proves how racist you are. That's a very tyrannical way of thinking.

Because it is not extreme to make a blanket statement to explain the public's reaction to an event. I know this would never occur to Scoop while he is on his soapbox, but maybe even more than people not liking LeBron James going to Miami to play for the Heat, people don't like to be accused of being racist. I know that sounds crazy, but James essentially believes he knows more about the true feelings of the media and public better than they do.

Or is this a column about America?

When it comes to race and sports in this country, there seems to be two types of people: those who see race as an issue in damn near everything and those who don't see color at all.

Scoop Jackson has apparently been taking online courses on stereotyping because he seems to be very good at it. For a guy who doesn't like racism and putting people of a certain color in certain categories that supposedly explains everything about them, Scoop does a great job of putting anyone with an opinion on this issue in two simple categories that supposedly explains everything about them.

Talk about taking two extreme positions on an issue...does Scoop really believe these are the only two categories of people when it comes to race and sports in this country? If so, he is an even bigger idiot than I originally thought. There's nothing like taking the nuance out of a discussion.

Of all the things LeBron James might have done wrong in the last five months, his last -- claiming that race probably has played a role in the overall reaction to his offseason activities -- to many might have been the wrongest.

Because he essentially used a charge of racism as a cover for why everyone hates him. He used racism as a shield to defend himself and rather than admit it was a poorly handled move in going to Miami by doing an hour-long special that basically massaged his ego and rubbed Cleveland's face in the mud. James can admit a little bit that the move was handled badly, but only if he can blame the public for some of the negative reaction towards his decision. I had no problem with James going to Miami if that is what he wanted to do, but it's unfair to pretend to know the reason why those who disagree with this position did so.

But that doesn't mean what he said was wrong. Nor does that mean what he meant shouldn't be heard. Or understood. Or taken into consideration.

I think it should be taken into consideration. What else should be taken into consideration that is possibly James was hiding behind race card to avoid the real reasons the media and public may not have liked his move. What are those reasons? I don't know because I can't speak for everyone. For me, I didn't hate the decision to go to Miami, but I don't like LeBron because his team is in direct competition with my favorite team. I would prefer to see him compete against Wade rather than compete with Wade.

Those people who still have a problem with LeBron claiming that race has been a factor and continues to play a role in the fallout from "The Decision" need to ask themselves this question: If LeBron were white, would he be going through the same thing?

Probably. I don't think there is any proof one way or another though.

The answer is no different than any other honest answer we should come to when situations like this occur: Yes … and no.

I like how Scoop finds the nuance in a situation when he has to prove a point, but otherwise the entire world sees racism as a problem in sports or doesn't see it at all. It's black or white, except for when it is not, and this time it is not.

1 comments Opposite Day for Troy Aikman

Hi kids. I know I've been something of a deadbeat Dad when it comes to my participation on the blog here (but by God if Ben doesn't run one hell of a tight ship). And I have no excuse for that. Really. But in the fine spirit of deadbeat Dads before me, I come with a tacky gift - Troy Aikman's stupidity. Not content with merely serving this up to us once a week on Sunday's, Troy has popped in to say hello on Thursday, with one of the more boring articles anyone can write (hey, it is Troy Aikman); a QB top 10 list. Here 'tis.

Troy Aikman lists his top 10 NFL quarterbacks

let's call it a win for catchy titles.

Having played the position myself, I probably view quarterbacks a little differently than most people.

c'mon Chad Henne #1!

It’s not just about talent and production. A quarterback also has to be the team leader and spokesman, and he must be able to handle criticism as well as praise.

...what a radical redefinition of the position. I've never heard anyone in the media talk of this "leadership" and "poise" attributes you speak of.

Given all of the media outlets and fan forums out there now, the scrutiny of quarterbacks has never been more intense.

My list of the top 10 quarterbacks probably will generate healthy debate among fans — Why did you leave this guy off? Why is that guy ranked so low? — but I know one thing: Each of these players has the complete package, and I would start a team with any of them.

you're all winners! But seriously, are you trying to pre-emptively comfort the losers? Predict the mass hysteria your (entirely non controversial, bar one, very, very, very big glaring omission) list will generate. "I know some will call me brash, foolish, even arrogant at the preperation of this list. All I can tell those people is that writing this list was the hardest thing I ever had to do in my life, and I hope you all can forgive me."

Just give me Peyton, Brady and Brees.

1. Peyton Manning, Colts. I’ve never seen any quarterback shoulder more responsibility and do more for his team. We all see what he does in games on Sunday, but what he does in practice during the week is just as impressive.

2. Tom Brady, Patriots. He recently became the highest-paid player in the NFL — and deservedly so. Three Super Bowl championships. Enough said.

3. Drew Brees, Saints. He’s the perfect guy to run Sean Payton’s offense. I don’t know if there are many players more prepared going into a game.

don't say he didn't warn you to brace yourself. How feeble are these little explanations by the way? Manning - he's responsible for the offense and prepared. Brady - he's paid a lot and won rings. Brees - he's responsible for the offense and prepared. This is the greatest waste of bandwidth since...well, that's what this blog is for isn't it? To document all that stuff.

4. Aaron Rodgers, Packers. He stepped in under difficult circumstances two years ago and has produced back-to-back 4,000-yard passing seasons. Plus, his best days are still ahead. Aaron is one cool customer who has handled everything thrown at him with ease.

very chic pick. Even the first open slot he filled predictably.

5. Philip Rivers, Chargers. He has great charisma and is a tremendous competitor. For a guy who doesn’t move that well in the pocket, he has surprising playmaking ability.

even if his team does hate him.

6. Tony Romo, Cowboys. He’s a great playmaker. People have criticized him for not showing up big in big games — and at times he has struggled — but it’s not because he doesn’t welcome the challenge. He loves competition.

let the record show that the three names above have a 4-8 postseason record between them. Remember this, it'll be important in a minute. Keen observers probably see what's coming.

7. Matt Schaub, Texans. After escaping the obscurity of playing behind Michael Vick in Atlanta, Schaub has blossomed as a starter in Houston. If he can stay healthy, his performance this season could elevate his status around the league.

Schaub has started 22 consecutive games and 41 of a possible 51 for the Texans, hardly a huge injury risk.

8. Carson Palmer, Bengals. Injury issues and distractions around the team have sometimes called attention away from the fact he is pretty special. He’s one of the most talented guys nobody talks about.

people talk about Carson Palmer all the time. His QB rating for the last three years is 83.12. He ain't the same guy Troy.

9. Matt Ryan, Falcons. With Ryan as their starter, the Falcons have had back-to-back winning seasons for the first time in franchise history. As long as he stays healthy, they’re going to have a lot of winning seasons — and playoff victories, too.
10. Joe Flacco, Ravens. For a guy who plays on an offense that tends to get overshadowed by its defense and big personalities, he has developed into a great leader. I like him a lot.

OK, here's why I'm here.

Ben Roethlisberger.

Just from the Wiki page.

Roethlisberger has been one of the most efficient passers in NFL history. He currently ranks 9th all-time in NFL passer rating (91.7), 5th in yards per attempt (8.01), and 9th in completion percentage (63.29%) among quarterbacks with a minimum of 1500 career attempts. He has the 5th highest winning percentage (.698) as a starter in the regular season among quarterbacks with a minimum of 80 starts.

He's 7-2 in the postseason. The names above him (not including the big three) are 6-13, none has a winning playoff record. None have ever even been to a Superbowl. Three of them have had just three full seasons in the league. Troy, What. The. Fuck. I think he actually, literally just forgot because Roethlisberger's missed a few games. I'm sorry, I'm not even a Big Ben guy but come the fuck on. He's done this all behind one of the worst O-Line's in the league (at least consistantly below average) and rarely had an above average running game.

But wait, there's more.

Honorable mention: Brett Favre, Vikings. He didn’t make my top 10 only because he’s about to turn 41. We take his consecutive games streak for granted, expecting him to be there every week. Because of that, we’ve lost sight of just how punishing playing quarterback is. Favre came back last year and played at an unbelievable level. That was more impressive than anything I’d seen him do in his 20 NFL seasons.

my issue here, it may surprise you, is not with Favre's mention (notwithstanding my Roethlisberger comments above). No, it's with the "punishing" line. Playing quarterback is punishing apparently.

I call shenanigans. Shenanigans I say!

Honestly, this is the only player on the field you can touch with a feather duster only. He is the most protected player of the 22 out there, both in terms of blocking and of referees. Yeah, those running backs sure have it easy huh Troy? And what about those bum offensive lineman? Pussies. Try going out there and playing quarterback, when you have the punishing embarrassment of sitting down while players around you apologise to a referee for touching you. Punishing stuff.

Maybe wide receiver. Maybe I can give you wide receiver. But even a receiver gets tackled three or four times a game. Quarterback is the one, non special teams position on the field, where you have a possible chance of not touching anyone on the opposition for the entire game. They devote five men specifically to stop you being tackled. When a quarterback is tackled, everyone, spectators, players, broadcasters, are beside themselves with excitement. They even have a special stat to commemorate it it's so amazing. Coaches demand that quarterbacks do not run for fear of being physically imposed upon by the opposition player, something every other player goes through between four and fifty times a game. There is not a more preening position in sports, and this "consecutive games" thing is fucking ludicrous. Running backs should be applauded for this. Offensive lineman. Linebackers. Not fucking quarterbacks, and especially not, self serving Brett fucking Favre.

Now I'm done.

4 comments Ten Things I Think I Think Peter King Has Not Thought Of: NFL Training Camp Edition

I have set up a Yahoo Fantasy Football League and those of you who have already expressed interest can feel free to join. Anyone else who wants to join can feel free to do so as well. I am planning on having a 12 team league and I have set up the league like last year's Yahoo league, but am open to any changes. The ID is 269298 and the password is "eckstein."

Today I am doing "Ten Things I Think I Think Peter King Has Not Thought Of," because I didn't have just one article I wanted to focus on. For those of you who haven't ever seen this gimmick, I basically just have a bunch of articles that I have bookmarked which wouldn't require a full post the size of an encyclopedia, so I put ten of them into one long post that is the length of an encyclopedia and 1000 times less informational. To fully embrace this concept requires a mind willing to skip around from topic to topic, which is how my mind works.

1. We start off today with the king of all ex-GM's, Steve Phillips, who educates us about MLB's post-August 1 waiver process, even though he admittedly doesn't know a damn thing about it.

Waivers. The word itself evokes a rapid heartbeat and beads of sweat on my forehead. As a young executive in baseball I would hear others talk about waivers and I would wonder what the heck they were.

He wasn't a mail room boy or the guy who made copies for the General Manager, he was a young executive with a baseball team. He had to help the Mets make decisions and shit like that.

When I would ask someone to explain them to me, I immediately saw fear in the person's eyes. Then they would say, "Well, they are really complicated. You just have to learn about them as you do them."

"You have to fuck them up a few times and then you will understand how the waiver process works. Oh by the way, if you screw up the waiver system then the team could take on a crap load of extra payroll or you could hand your division rival a good player. Good luck."

This is how the Mets were running the team in the early 1990's apparently.

My response would be, "I am pretty smart. Can you just explain them to me?"

The person would stiffen and then flee, looking over a shoulder saying, "Ask someone in the Commissioner's Office to explain them to you."

It doesn't sound like anyone really wanted to help Steve Phillips learn how to work the waiver system in baseball. Perhaps a person was afraid Phillips would take his/her job.

Once, when I was broadcasting a game on national television, a 12-year-old kid asked a question on the air about waivers and how players get traded this time of year. I bravely started to answer and as I talked over about five pitches I looked at my colleagues in the broadcast booth and they had the most bewildered look on their faces. They had no clue what I was saying, and neither did the 12-year-old kid.

This question was asked of Steve Phillips on a telecast AFTER he had been the General Manager of the Mets from 1997-2003. Not before, but after. I hope to God my favorite team's GM understands how the waiver process in baseball works.

Needless to say, neither did I.

Phillips had been the General Manager of the Mets for six years and he couldn't explain how MLB's waiver process works. Of course at this point he worked for ESPN and was an "expert" on baseball, yet couldn't explain or didn't seem to understand certain parts of baseball.

I know waivers are hard to understand, but Steve Phillips couldn't explain how the waiver process works. It's not bad that he couldn't make others understand the process, but he admittedly had no idea what he was talking about while he was trying to explain it. I find this to be slightly amazing.

Starting on Aug. 1, players cannot be unilaterally traded. They must go through the waiver process. More specifically, they must pass through major league waivers.

I don't know everything about the waiver process after August 1, but I think I could explain it if given the opportunity to the point a person has a general idea of how it works.

The best way to picture the actual waiver process is to imagine all 30 general managers seated around a runway. You know, the kind models walk up and down during fashion shows.

This analogy goes downhill from here.

As the players walk down the proverbial runway, the general managers study them from top to bottom. They discuss what they see with their staffs. They evaluate their stats and their contracts and decide whether they have interest in them.

Players are on waivers for two days, so they just keep walking around the runway for that period of time while being gawked at by front office executives.

An easier way to say this is that the worst teams get the first shot at a player put on waivers. Teams in the AL get a shot at a player on waivers who plays for an AL team, then the NL teams get a shot at that player. If a player is put on waivers he can stay there for two days and only seven players a day per team can be put on waivers. If a player #1 is claimed his original team can make a trade with the team claiming player #1 through trade in exchange for player #2 who also has to clear waivers, the team can let the other team just have player #1, or pull the player back so he stays with his original team.

I know that is a simple way to look at it, but this doesn't seem like an incredibly difficult process to me.

Players claimed by multiple teams when walking the runway must hang around for a couple of days as well. The pecking order for awarding the claim is that the club with the worst record in a player's league gets awarded the claim. If no team in his own league claims a player then the club with the worst record in the other league gets the claim. Once the claimant is determined then one of the three outcomes mentioned above can occur.

I think Steve Phillips has made it more complicated with his example. So whichever team that has the worst record is awarded the claim, with AL teams trying to claim an AL player from an AL team first (and the same goes for the NL) before an NL team gets a shot at claiming the player.

The hope here is that waivers are a bit less intimidating now than they were before you read this. You may now get up and walk about the cabin.

I do find it slightly incredible that Steve Phillips didn't really know how to explain the waiver process in MLB and that as a young executive with the Mets they had him learn how the waiver process worked while he was on the job. I know other teams probably do the same thing, but I don't know if the system is that complicated.

2. Bert Blyleven writes the kind of article I don't like. He writes an article about how Lance Berkman will face a challenge in New York with the Yankees because he is not used to playing there. I know playing in New York is different from playing other places, but Berkman is a veteran and the image of him as a good ol' boy who ain't used to those big lights and funny accented people asking him questions just isn't true.

Lance Berkman is the latest big name to be acquired by the mighty New York Yankees at the trade deadline.This is just business as usual for the Yankees, who even though are they are already a powerhouse, feel the need to make moves to improve themselves at the deadline.

The Yankees are a powerhouse, but they are also locked in a death battle with the Rays (and even somewhat with the Red Sox, though Bill Simmons doesn't acknowledge this) for the lead in AL East. So making any type of move to improve their team is a smart move.

Boston and Tampa Bay are right there trying to compete in the AL East, with the Rays doing a very good job, but it was the Yankees who made some moves to get better.

Hey, the Red Sox traded for Jarrod Saltalamacchia! He may be part of the "boring" Red Sox, but that counts as a move right?

The question is how will Berkman handle the transition to the Bronx? He is a good hitter, but what he will have to go through will not be easy. Berkman was born in Waco, Texas, played collegiately at Rice University in Houston, and played his entire major league career for the Astros.

(Cue country voice) "I forgot Berkman was from here in Texas, that's right. I bet he won't know what all those tall buildings in New York do or how to handle those people with microphones. I'll be darned if he ain't going to struggle with the lingo there in New York. He probably can't even find New York on a map, even if that map is drawn in the dirt, which is how maps are drawn down here in Texas."

"Lord knows Andy Pettitte has done struggled a lot there in New York and he is from Texas too. Nick Swisher, who is from West Virginia (where there is no electricity AND you are forced by law to marry a relative), hasn't done shit since the Yankees got him. It's just a different world there in New York and I ain't sure if ol' Berkman can handle it. He ain't never left the state of Texas either, so he's got a world of changing to do."

He will be out of his element in New York for the next two-plus months, likely living in a hotel and out of a suitcase.

Which as a baseball player for his entire life I am sure he is completely used to. It's not like teams don't take long road trips or Berkman can't afford to sublet a condo in New York for a few months.

He will have to adjust, not only to the intense New York media and fans, but also to a whole new group of teammates.

(Cue country voice) "I hear there are minorities on that there Yankees team. That's the key to their success. They scoop up minorities and force them to play for their team. They done got that Japanese kid and several Mexicans that play for them. I bet none of them speak English either. Lance can't learn no Japanese or Chinese. He's a bit ol' for that. How's he going to speak to his teammates if he can't understand a damn word out of their mouth?"

In addition to dealing with new teammates, Berkman will have to get used to the New York press,

I am sure Berkman isn't used to having the press cover his baseball exploits and God knows the Yankees press will be all over Berkman for any failings since he is essentially a bench player and the DH. Good news A-Rod, Tex, Sabathia, and Jeter, you are off the hook! No one will pay attention to you now that Lance Berkman is on the Yankees team. All the pressure is off you!

which is large and intense.

That's what she said.

But despite these hurdles, I think Berkman is going to be fine playing for an organization like the Yankees.

But you just wrote an entire half-article indicating Berkman wouldn't be fine. Why did you do this? You created a stupid argument and then said you don't believe this stupid argument you created.

The pressure won’t be focused on him and he probably won’t have to play every day.

So everything you just said and worried about isn't true at all. Good to know.

Will he become close friends with anybody? Probably not.

Other than Andy Pettitte, who he played with in Houston. Also, I am sure he knows other players on the Yankees team. It's not like Berkman has played in Honduras over his entire baseball career.

And it’s possible he won’t be entirely comfortable in New York after a lifetime in Texas.

(Cue country voice again) I hope none of them God-hatin' liberals try to get him to go abort babies or something. Stay true to your Texas roots Lance!"

That will definitely excite Berkman. He knows there’s a pot

There's pot?

of gold at the end of this rainbow.

Ohhhhhhhhh...don't get Berkman's hopes up like that.

3. I have something shocking to say. Scoop Jackson actually has a good idea. I know, I didn't want to believe it either. More surprisingly, it is a good idea that involves Tracy McGrady.

Now, after the news broke Tuesday that his chance to play for Chicago might not materialize because the Bulls reportedly are concerned he might not be willing to "embrace a secondary role" on the team, McGrady has a soul-wrenching decision to make: Do I face the reality that I might have to be an exaggerated (but still significant, depending on which team I go to) role/bench player? Or do I want to prove that I'm still a star?

He is not still a star. He is still a productive player, but McGrady isn't still a star.

Under the right circumstances, 10 points in 24 minutes per game can beat 20 in 36 all day at this stage, especially if he's doing it for a team that will play between 86 and 100 games next season as opposed to a team guaranteed only the regular season's 82.

I actually agree with Scoop on this issue. I think T-Mac would be greatly served by taking a role as the 6th or 7th man off the bench on a good team. If the Lakers could make room for him, how would that not improve the team? Wouldn't it be of great benefit to the Magic if they could lure T-Mac into coming off the bench and play with his cousin, Vince Carter? I hope McGrady isn't looking to be a star, because I am afraid that train has left the station. He still has something left, but not as the star of a team.

Wouldn't McGrady look good in Chicago coming off the bench? I admit, part of me wants me to see T-Mac on a team so they can compete better with Miami and make the Eastern Conference more competitive.

Being that player, that complementary player who still has the All-Star skills, should be more important to him after 13 seasons in the league than proving to the world that he was the first Kevin Durant.

Scoop imagines T-Mac on the Lakers roster with Lamar Odom and Matt Barnes also coming off the bench. That's a pretty good team.

As the options dwindle, T-Mac needs to create a new reality -- a reality that doesn't include what we're painfully and unfortunately watching O'Neal and Iverson go through.

Shockingly, I agree with Scoop. It has been painful to see O'Neal and Iverson realize too late they aren't the star players they thought they once were. What's worse is that some of the teams they played for also fell into this trap of believing it. I would love to see T-Mac take a 6th man role on a good team and be like Bill Walton on the 1986 Celtics or Odom on last year's Lakers. A good player playing a role on a great team.

4. The Celtics have appeared to corner the market on washed up veteran big men whose last name is "O'Neal." I don't know how I feel about this. Unlike what I thought they were going to do, the Celtics seem to be intent on making their team older, rather than younger.

Shaquille O'Neal has changed The Big Three of the Boston Celtics into a Very Big Four.

Not at all. There is already a Big Four on the Celtics roster and it in no way includes Shaq. He should play 20 minutes per game, rebound, and just try to stay out of everyone's way when they drive to the basket.

O'Neal signed a two-year contract worth about $3 million on Wednesday, a person with knowledge of the negotiations said on condition of anonymity because no details were released.

It is not a bad deal, but I don't know how much gas Shaq has left in the tank. When he isn't useful, while on the floor he just takes up space and clogs the lane from other players being able to drive to the basket. He can still rebound, and I know Kendrick Perkins is out for a while, but I don't know if this changes my opinion on how the Eastern Conference will end up shaping out at the end of the year.

I just hope Shaq understands he shouldn't be in the starting lineup when Perkins comes back and ends up being fine with that. I feel like he is just sticking around in the NBA so he can hit the milestone of playing for 20 years and doesn't really care that much anymore.

5. Now let's talk about this Frett Bavre guy (I am using code for his name just for a second) and his real motives for retiring/unretiring. Among other things, including massaging his ego, I think Favre probably also wants more money and the Vikings are willing to play that game reportedly.

After my post on Wednesday, Favre came out and said he had not indicated whether he was retiring or not. He didn't say why anyone would think he wrote a text message saying he was retiring, though I really think that is just part of the ploy to keep his name in the spotlight. He wanted to give the Vikings a quick taste of life without him so they would know how great he is. Now Favre says he will come back if he is healthy. I don't know what this means exactly or when Favre will make a decision on his health. I'm guessing he may want to give himself until the day before the first game of the regular season to make a final decision.

Judd Zulgad off the Minneapolis Star-Tribune reports that the Vikings have already reached out to Favre to offer a $3 million a year raise, if that's what it takes to get him to come back.

I am sure Favre would say this isn't all about money, but the love of the game. He would also be lying...as usual.

And the Vikings are apparently even willing to throw in some incentives on top of that, pushing his 2010 payment above $16 million. Incentives could be based on playing time, statistics, the Vikings' performance as a team or even the date that Favre reports to camp:

I thought this new fake retirement text message was all a ploy. Now Favre has gotten his name back in the news and the Vikings are willing to pay him more money. I make fun of Favre and judge him a lot for waffling on the issue of retirement, but pretending to retire every summer for the past three summers has really worked out well for him financially and competitively.

6. I have asked myself on several occasions why some of these networks (like ESPN) have played along with Favre's retirement game and seem to cater to him so much. It turns out they may have something to gain from treating Favre with kid gloves. (Sorry for the weird copying and pasting, but USA Today makes it tough to mock their articles)

Networks often hesitate to admit interest in on-air
candidates — they don't want to seem like losers if
things don't work out — but there was no point
Tuesday in trying to hide the lust for TV sports'
hottest prospect in years.

If a pregame show like those at FOX, CBS, NBC or ESPN wants to guarantee I won't watch their pregame show, they would have Brett Favre be an analyst. I am Favred-out. I would probably DVR the show he is on and then make fun of things he says. I am not trying to be spiteful, but I have had enough of him while he played in the NFL. I wouldn't mind seeing him disappear quietly and tend to his farm.

"If the opportunity were right, we'd look to add him
to our team," CBS vice president Harold Bryant said.
Eric Weinberger, an NFL Network executive
producer, said Favre has "a unique personality with
a great sense of humor. He's seen it all and could
analyze any situation." ESPN's Mike Soltys said it was
business as usual with the latest supposed
retirement since "we've said for years that when he
retires, we'd like to talk to him." Fox senior vice
president Lou D'Ermilio summed it up: "Any network
that claims to not be interested in Favre is nuts!"

So naturally since these networks would be crazy to not want Favre on their roster of "experts" they aren't going to do or say anything to piss him off. Could Favre even make a prediction on the pregame show?

How would this even work out? Would he choose one team to win a game and then try to change his prediction a few minutes later? Does Favre know other "experts" get to talk as well and the entire limelight wouldn't be directly on him? Instead of criticizing a quarterback for throwing an interception would he just let the guy off the hook because he plays the game like a kid and is just trying to make a play?

Fox could up the ante by
creating a three-man booth with Favre, Aikman and
Joe Buck,

(Bengoodfella commits suicide at the possibility of this happening)

But ESPN could find on-air roles for him day
and night, assign a production truck to his driveway
if he didn't want to go anywhere

Great, the last thing we need is other people giving Favre ideas on how to be more high-maintenance in order to crave and receive special attention. Why doesn't ESPN just move the entire studio down to Mississippi so Brett can be close to Deanna and Breleigh and still analyze NFL games?

NFLN, with the least star power among the NFL
carriers, could let Favre be league commissioner for
a day if necessary.

You can't even joke about things like this tongue-in-cheek with Favre. He will end up wanting this. He will announce his retirement at ESPN just so he can go analyze games for FOX. Then he will retire from FOX and join CBS. Let's please not give him another forum to be in the spotlight.

7. Speaking of quarterbacks who are God-like, how about that Tim Tebow fellow? Woody Paige writes his bi-weekly column on Tebow and again pleads for his crush to be able to start this upcoming year.

At Dove Valley, one of the gaggle of new radio show gabbers, apparently fresh from his turn with a pail and a shovel for Ringling Bros., provided us with this assay:

I hate those radio show idiots who talk about things they don't understand, yell into the phone because they feel like that makes them heard better, and write stupid juvenile sayings on a blackboard that is supposed to be a stand-in for creativity. Wait, that's Woody Paige who does all of that.

"The Broncos will win eight games and won't get to the playoffs. No way Tebow is the starter, but he will be quarterback on third-and-short, fourth-and-1 and close to the end zone."

I think the part about Tebow being the quarterback on some goal line plays has been pretty much known, if not completely stated by Josh McDaniels on several occasions.

Here, here, and here. McDaniels essentially told Peter King he had some goal line packages lined up for Tebow and there has been some other evidence that McDaniels wants to see Tebow used on short-yardage situations. I don't know why Woody has a problem with this statement.

Alas, that contradictory contention is widely shared.

I fail to understand how it is contradictory to say Tebow won't start but will be in on some goal line packages.

If one truly believes that the Broncos won't reach the postseason in 2010, what would be the purpose of starting a lame-duck quarterback?

I like how Woody mocks this radio caller, then accepts his conclusion the Broncos won't reach the playoffs as fact. That's nice.

This caller isn't the person who decides whether the Broncos make the playoffs, he is just saying the Broncos won't make the playoffs. The point of starting a lame-duck quarterback is to make an effort to reach the playoffs.

And if one genuinely believes Tim Tebow shouldn't be a full-time quarterback, why would he be placed in that position in the most critical offensive situations — third and fourth downs and inside the 10-yard line?

This is what kills me about Tim Tebow-lovers like Woody Paige. They take everything as a direct knock against Tim Tebow. It's like if a person doesn't think Tebow is ready to play quarterback this year, then that person thinks Tebow will never be a good quarterback in the NFL. This caller didn't appear to say Tebow shouldn't be a full-time quarterback EVER, just not this year.

Tebow should be in critical offensive situations because he is a big guy and he has a good chance of making it in the end zone. There's a BIG difference in a quarterback being able to play quarterback full-time and get a first down on short-yardage plays. A big difference.

The assertions are absolutely irrational.

As are yours.

If the Broncos are going nowhere this season with Kyle Orton, why doesn't Tim Tebow start at quarterback?

Because the Broncos MAY go somewhere. There's no point in starting a quarterback that just isn't ready to be starting.

If the Broncos trust Tebow more than Orton on third-and-2 and fourth-and-goal, why wouldn't Tebow also be in the game on first-and-10 and second-and-5?

It's not that they trust Tebow more than Orton on those plays, but this the same reason some teams don't put their best running back in the game on short-and-goal plays. Some players can get short-yardage better than others. I find it amazing Woody can't see the difference in trusting a quarterback to get a first down on third-and-2 and trusting a quarterback to play well in longer yardage situations. There's a difference in what is required of the quarterback depending on the yardage. Tebow is more athletic than Orton, so he is the guy to get shorter-yardage gains.

You can't pay attention to football and not understand the difference in short-yardage and long-yardage situations for a quarterback.

Then Woody starts using small sample sizes from the quarterbacks who started in 2008 as a rookie to prove his point and hits us with this doozy:

Out of the 2000s, Cutler has been considered a first-round failure so far, as have Russell (cut), Grossman (despite starting in the Super Bowl), Joey Harrington, David Carr, Patrick Ramsey, Kyle Boller, J.P. Losman, Matt Leinart, Alex Smith (although the last two are expected to start this year) and Quinn.

Jay Cutler is considered a first-round failure? Are we sure about this? This isn't any bitter Denver sportswriting that is shading this opinion of Cutler? I could call Jay Cutler a lot of things, but I don't think he is a first-round failure at all. It's ridiculous to put him in the same class as JaMarcus Russell, Rex Grossman or Joey Harrington.

What now with the Broncos? Which quarterback gives the Broncos their best chance at the playoffs? Orton? Tebow? Both playing in games? Neither? Quinn? None?

How about Tebow gets in on certain plays until he is ready to play quarterback full-time? Or is this answer too easy?

Despite what experts claim, that decision has not been made before the official grand opening of camp today.

So Tim Tebow still has a shot, but if the Broncos aren't going to start him Woody thinks it is pointless to put him on goal line plays. I think his love for Tebow has fogged Woody's mind.

8. Tim Tebow actually held out of training camp for a day or so until his contract was done. Apparently (and rightly so) he wanted more money than the guy taken before him. I am sure he will take the difference in and he and Dez Bryant's paycheck and donate it to a charity though. Who would have thought Tebow could be so vain as to care about money?

Fortunately, a deal got done and Tebow rightly got more money than Dez Bryant (because he is a quarterback and they generally get more money than the person drafted directly before them). The shock at Tebow actually wanting to be paid to play football aside, I noticed a couple parts of this article that contradict what Woody Paige just said (and had his heart set on) about Tebow's chance of starting.

By going to Denver, he goes to a place where he won't be expected to start immediately.

BUT HE HAS BIG HANDS THAT WON'T FUMBLE THE FOOTBALL! LOOK AT HOW BIG HIS ARMS ARE! HIS SMILES LIGHTS UP A ROOM!

Instead, Tebow's role could be as a complimentary player, perhaps as a change-of-pace player who can offer some athleticism and smarts while he continues to refine his throwing fundamentals. He will see the field, but it seems highly unlikely that Tebow would play more than a handful of snaps in a game.

Start him or sit him says Woody Paige! There shall be no in-between!

Head coach Josh McDaniels has said the three will compete, but the smart money is on either Orton or Quinn starting the opener Sept. 12 against Jacksonville.

Woody Paige breaks down weeping and then goes slowly walking back to his room mumbling, "But there is an open competition for the starting job," over and over.

9. In regard to this Albert Haynesworth conditioning test story, I am a little bit torn.

On one hand, I understand that Haynesworth is a defensive lineman and he really isn't supposed to do run fast. So a conditioning test that makes him run fast and move quickly isn't really a test of how well he will do his job at defensive tackle. Haynesworth doesn't have to do much running on each play and mostly takes up space and runs a few yards to try and get the ball-carrier or the quarterback. Mike Shanahan runs the risk of looking petty if he forces Haynesworth to complete the test and won't let him practice until he does. It is a part of the program that Shanahan makes players pass, but at a certain point it becomes more of an issue of Shanahan just being difficult and needing to realize Haynesworth can't pass the test and it really may not matter in the long run in regard to the success of the team. How good of shape is a defensive tackle ever in?

On the other hand, Haynesworth has to complete the test because he skipped the team's offseason conditioning program. I don't believe this conditioning program was mandatory so it may not be right to sort of punish Haynesworth for not participating, but that's for the union to worry about. If Haynesworth didn't want to perform the drill, he should have been at the program with the rest of his teammates. So he sort of brought this problem on himself. Haynesworth has a history of being difficult and he has balked at being the nose tackle in the 3-4 defense, so I have a feeling this stand-off is about more than just this test. Haynesworth has been difficult this summer and Shanahan probably wants to use this test to see how committed Haynesworth really is. It's not good to have a player in the locker room who is rocking the boat, but it is especially not good when that player is the highest paid player on the team.

I don't really know if I have a strong opinion one way or another on this issue, but I think this conditioning test is about more than how quickly Haynesworth can run the required distance.

10. Damn you Peter King. Someone came in my office today and asked me if I wanted to go in with him to purchase some good coffee because the stuff at work tastes like ass. I asked him what coffee he liked best and he told me I had not heard of it. I told him to try me and he told me it is coffee from a West Coast place called "Peet's." Sadly, I had heart of this place because Peter King wrote this a year ago:

d. Coffeenerdness: I've often sung the praises of Peet's Coffee. But the thing I've realized landing in San Francisco Friday and walking into the terminal was that part of the greatness of Peet's is the aroma of the espresso. It's like smelling the grass in baseball or the leather smell of the ball at the first football practice of the year. The aroma is part of the reason you love it.

Damn you Peter King. You and your MMQB are drawing me into knowing obscure and pretty much irrelevant (to my life) coffee shops and flavors. Your fascination with coffee, combined with my fascination of your MMQB has allowed my mind to gain information I do not care to receive. On to Mike Celizic...

Mike Celizic thinks that Brett Favre has the right idea in missing training camp because it thinks it is pointless. Personally, I think he just doesn't understand what is going on.

From the standpoint of the team and players, NFL training camp is as important as all other training camps in all other sports.

Really, training camp is important. It is where the coaches make sure the players are ready to play for the upcoming season and see which players will line up where on the depth chart. God knows preseason games aren't incredibly useful for this. Coaches can install parts of the offense at training camp and see how the team is making progress. It doesn't seem to be important, but it is.

I first went to a training camp when I was about 21 or 22.

We stood behind a rope or fence and the players ran on the field right past us. Then they got on the field and exercised. Then they did stuff. Some hit blocking sleds. Some practiced hiking and handing off. Some practiced throwing and catching.

Why would a team want to practice the parts of football that helps a team win during the regular season? A lot more was probably happening than just guys throwing the ball and catching it, but Mike Celizic couldn't grasp what they were doing, so obviously he thought what they were doing was stupid.

Favre knows. He doesn’t have any plays to learn, and he can make the plays, just as he did last season.

He knew the plays already, had been guaranteed a starting spot and he has been in the league for nearly two decades. Most players don't have these benefits when they go into training camp.

There's rarely anything to learn. You already know who the quarterback is going to be — and if you don’t, I feel sorry for your team.

Not knowing who the quarterback will be doesn't mean the team will stink. It just means the job is still up in the air and what happens at training camp will decide who gets the gig.

You know the running backs. You may not know the offensive line, but nothing you see in practice is going to help you on that count. If you’re a coach, you may find it useful.

So if the coaches find training camp useful, then that means it is probably useful. Decision made, let's move on.

But otherwise, there’s nothing there that’s going to help me understand what’s going to happen in the coming season.

Why is it that old sportswriters think if they don't understand something then that means what they don't understand is stupid or pointless? They feel like they are so important if they don't understand something then it isn't relevant.

It doesn’t matter. There are endless supply of analysts and inflicting daily NFL pre-camp reports on us. I was watching SportsCenter today when I heard a discussion of the AFC and NFC South divisions. It went on for at least five minutes and here’s what I learned:

Obviously ESPN analysts are idiots. They aren't there to give opinions or really be experts, but to entertain. ESPN is an entertainment network, not a sports network.

“It always comes back to Peyton Manning, especially in the AFC South.”

Somewhere, NFL fans were listening to that and nodding their heads in agreement, because that’s some serious insight.

Actually, some people are smart enough to understand this isn't insight.

Just don’t ask me to join in. There’s a baseball season that’s starting to get interesting. I’ll be watching it.

You realize you can watch both, right? Training camp may seem pointless to a person who doesn't understand what goes on at training camp, but if the coaches find it important then that should tell Mike Celizic something.

9 comments I'm Not 100% Sure Mike Florio Thought This List Through

Mike Florio lists the five quarterbacks who need to be benched. That is what this column is about, or at least what I think it is about. I am actually not sure because the only thing these five quarterbacks have in common is there really isn't a more viable option available as the backup quarterback behind them on their team. So benching these quarterbacks would do very little good to help the team win games this year. There is one quarterback who I think should be possibly benched out of this group, but I still don't like Florio's reasoning for benching him.

Florio runs ProFootballTalk, which is one of my favorite NFL sites, so I sort of feel like I am critiquing another blogger. Of course when you write columns for NBCSports I guess the status of a person as a "blogger" goes out the window.

Regardless, let's see why Mike Florio thinks these quarterbacks should be benched.

As training camp approaches and with every team in the valley of 0-0 and having a one-in-four chance (in theory) of winning the division and hosting a playoff game, optimism causes many fans to believe that their quarterback can -- and will -- not only survive but even thrive.

Mike Florio is here to crush this optimism by demanding your starting quarterback be benched and replaced with a potentially more underwhelming backup quarterback. Mediocrity can be yours!

Remember, this article is about which quarterbacks need to be benched, not which quarterbacks shouldn't even be starting quarterbacks in the NFL. If a person writes a quarterback needs to get benched, then there sure as hell better be a backup on the roster who can take over and be successful. After all, if this isn't the case then why bench your quarterback?

In some cities, the handwriting is already on the wall, plain to see for anyone who cares to notice.

Is it possible to bench a quarterback before he has even officially played a game as the starter? I would argue this is not possible. So this is a list of quarterbacks who shouldn't start for their team in the first game of the season. Oh, semantics. Anyway, I am getting sidetracked...

Jake Delhomme, Browns

Coach Eric Mangini recently said the starting job in Cleveland is Delhomme's to lose.

Don't tempt Jake Delhomme to lose the starting job. He will lose that starting job quicker than you can say, "he still owes me $150 for the 2009 playoff game debacle against the Cardinals."

I actually agree with this choice, but Delhomme should probably never have been signed in the first place. Of course he already has been signed, so there is nothing the Browns can do about that now. Since he has been signed he may be, may be, the best quarterback on the roster. Seneca Wallace probably isn't the answer, Colt McCoy isn't ready, and Brett Ratliff doesn't appear to be ready either. That leaves Jake Delhomme.

Delhomme lost his fastball at some point during the 13 days between Week 17 of the 2008 regular season and the divisional round of the playoffs. Though the Browns regard it as an aberration, it's unlikely that a guy would simply fall off the horse at an advanced stage of his career then find the stirrups again.

Delhomme actually played shitty from the January 2009 playoff game to the day that he "hurt" his thumb and finally pulled from the field by John Fox this past year. After he got hurt, the Panthers team started playing better, but I am sure that is a coincidence. So the aberration of a bad performance on the field the Browns saw lasted a total of 12 games...or as it is better known, nearly the entire amount of games Brady Quinn was given a chance to be the starting quarterback for the Browns.

David Garrard, Jaguars

The coach doesn't really believe in him. The owner doesn't really believe in him. So why in the heck is Garrard the Jaguars' starting quarterback?

Because the two quarterbacks behind Garrard are Luke McCown and Trevor Harris. Still think it is a good idea to bench Garrard? I don't.

In turn, the Jaguars should have found a better option in the offseason. They clearly don't love the guy. It makes no sense to keep him around.

So the Jaguars shouldn't bench Garrard, but should have found a better quarterback in the offseason. If only they had a time machine and could go back in time and sign a better quarterback than David Garrard and then go back further in time and not sign Garrard to a contract extension. "They should have signed another quarterback" was the same thing Florio said for the Browns about how they should not have signed Jake Delhomme. Perhaps this article could have been called, "5 Teams Who Should Have Signed Better Quarterbacks This Offseason," rather than the article being about quarterbacks getting benched.

Kyle Orton, Broncos

Like Orton wasn't on this list...we all know what's on the other side of Orton being bench....Tebow!

The decision to trade for Brady Quinn and to draft Tim Tebow hardly represents a vote of confidence for Orton, whose contract-year performance was rewarded with only a first-round restricted free-agent tender.

Thinking the decision to trade for Brady Quinn and draft Tim Tebow doesn't represent a vote of confidence for Kyle Orton also presupposes that Josh McDaniels has a master plan at all. I don't know if that is an assumption I am willing to make at this point. The Broncos got Brady Quinn for next-to-nothing and then McDaniels got lost in Tebow's eyes and the thickness of his biceps and felt the need to draft him. I don't know if there is a plan at the quarterback position in Denver to be honest. I need more information at this time.

So why do the Broncos insist on keeping him at the top of the depth chart? If, somehow, he plays well in 2010, it'll be harder to move on in 2011.

It won't be harder to move on in 2011 because the Broncos have Tim Tebow on the roster. Everyone loves Tebow! He's a future Hall of Fame quarterback! Haven't we already determined this?

The fact a quarterback may play well during the season and make it tough on the team to trade him or not be able to re-sign him isn't a good reason to get rid of that quarterback. That's just crazy talk. The fear of success by a quarterback is a poor reason to bench that quarterback. Kyle Orton playing so well that the Broncos have to re-sign him is a problem they would most likely like to have...especially since there may not be NFL games in 2011 due to a lockout.

The better move would be to get Tebow ready and get him on the field.

Great idea! Here's how to get Tim Tebow ready and get him on the field: Find a way to move time ahead one year and make it July 2011 and then hope that Tebow has improved enough in a year to be a starter in the NFL at that point. This shouldn't be hard, other than the whole scientific argument that time-travel isn't possible.

If the Broncos thought enough of Tebow to trade back into Round 1 to draft him, they simply should get him on the field.

They will get him on the field, but because a team chose a quarterback isn't the first round doesn't necessarily mean that quarterback has to be the starter for the upcoming year.

I am pretty sure there is a stiff debate on whether a quarterback is better served sitting on the bench or starting in his rookie year, so it isn't a given that a first round quarterback should automatically start in his rookie year. Mike Florio may have had heard something previously about this debate in the past, but I guess we know which side of the discussion he lands on.

Matt Moore, Panthers

After cutting Delhomme, the Panthers handed the ball to Moore.

They actually handed the ball to Matt Moore while Delhomme was still injured and there is a pretty good chance Moore would have started this year even with Delhomme on the roster...or at least he deserved to start.

Then the Panthers drafted a QB in Round 2 prepared to step in and play right away.

Mike Florio's vast experience at evaluating quarterbacks he has gained while writing an NFL blog and being an attorney tells him something every team that passed on Clausen did not know how NFL ready he was. That's what it seems since he is VERY confident Clausen can play right now.

What makes Florio think Clausen is prepared to play right away? He was considered "the most NFL-ready" quarterback in the draft? That means nothing.

So why not just give Jimmy Clausen the ball right now?

Maybe because he hasn't yet beat out the #2 guy on the depth chart, Hunter Cantwell, out for the job yet. Not to mention Matt Moore has a 6-2 career record as a starter, so he deserves a shot to be the #1 quarterback on the depth chart and try to win the job as the #1 quarterback on the depth chart.

If coach John Fox wants to stick around after 2010, he must show that Clausen can be the long-term answer at quarterback.

For a guy who runs a site that deals with NFL rumors and fact, Mike Florio sure has a poor grip on the John Fox coaching situation in Charlotte. Fox isn't a threat to be fired, he would be given a new contract if Jerry Richardson wasn't holding the line for the owners and cutting payroll in preparation for a strike. At this point, Fox is more inclined to go to another team on his own accord because he feels disrespected rather than from any threat the Panthers may not re-sign him. This is just lazy analysis of the situation.

I don't see how it makes sense to give the starting quarterback job to a rookie rather than a guy who has proven at the tail-end of last year he can win games. Why waste an offense that has a great running game, a good offensive line and one great receiver with a rookie at the helm if another guy has shown he deserves a shot to run the offense?

Matt Leinart, Cardinals

A top-10 pick in '06, Leinart hasn't been able to win and hold the job.

It doesn't help of course that Leinart has had Kurt Warner in front of him on the depth chart. Not to excuse Leinart's underachieving play, but it is not like the Cardinals should replace Leinart with Warner over the last two years while Warner is playing very well.

Injured in '07 after routinely being yanked for Kurt Warner when the going got tough, Leinart surprisingly landed on the bench shortly before the '08 season. He then watched Warner cement his Hall of Fame credentials.

Leinart may be a bust at the quarterback position, but he also probably deserves a chance to try and win the quarterback job in training camp, not just get benched before training camp.

Plus, who else is going to quarterback the Cardinals that is better than Leinart? Jake Delhomme-lite? (Derek Anderson) John Skelton or Max Hall, both guys who are rookies and not even close to being ready to start in the NFL? There aren't better options available at this point. Good quarterbacks just aren't laying around waiting to be signed.

So it's unclear why the team still has faith in Leinart. The best argument for keeping him on the field flows from the fact that the only other viable option is Derek Anderson.

So Leinart shouldn't be benched then? I love the idea that Mike Florio is writing a column about quarterbacks who should be benched before training camp, but three of the quarterbacks he writes about don't have a viable backup quarterback on the roster to play in place of the benched quarterback.

So why should Leinart get benched if there is a guy who is worse that would step in for him? In a perfect world, the Cardinals would have a replacement in the wings, but that isn't the case.

The Cardinals should have aggressively pursued other options in the offseason, whether Donovan McNabb or Marc Bulger.

So this is another situation where this article isn't really about quarterbacks who should have been benched and instead is about quarterbacks who should have been replaced in the offseason with a better quarterback. Is Marc Bulger really even a better option? He is 32 years old, injury-prone, and had his last good season in 2006. He's a great backup, but I don't know how I feel about him as a starter at this point.

Whatever the hell the Cardinals should have, could have or would have done doesn't matter at this point. They didn't sign a better quarterback, and because they don't have a better option to play the quarterback position doesn't mean their starting quarterback should be benched. You only bench a quarterback is there is a better option available and from his time in Cleveland over the last two years, Derek Anderson doesn't seem to qualify as a better option.

-Someone in the media, Ross Tucker, finally calls out Brett Favre for his diva-behavior and his blatant attempt to miss training camp. The title is "Brett Doesn't Deserve To Be Treated Like a Leader."

It is not super-harsh, but I will take whatever I can get. Here are some of my favorite parts for those who don't want to read it...

Unlike guys who may hold out in an attempt to get more money, he seems fine with the $13 million the Vikings are offering him in 2010. And even though Favre is supposedly still deciding whether he wants to play a 20th season in the NFL, the prevailing school of thought is that he'll be back. So what's the deal with possibly skipping training camp?

Because he can and Brad Childress lets him get away with it.

The Favre apologists are quick to point out that he has earned this type of special treatment based upon his status and longevity in the league. If that's the case, didn't Jerry Rice earn it as well? Or Emmitt Smith? Not to mention offensive linemen who played into their 40s, like Bruce Matthews and Jackie Slater. I'm pretty sure they all earned the right not to attend the worst three or four weeks of the year without facing the possibility of being fined, but I don't remember them skipping out on their teammates.

He can do this because he is Brett Favre. Haven't you seen the articles written about him? He is gritty, plays like a child and is the epitome of what every parent should want their child to grow up to be if they want their child to grow up to be a Vicodin-guzzling (that was old-school Favre), drama-queen, interception throwing quarterback who gets a pass because he is just so damn fun to watch play.

Is he worried about the intense practices? Sorry, but as a former offensive lineman I am not going to let a quarterback who wears a red jersey in practice attempt to get away with that excuse. That red jersey he wears means he is not allowed to even be touched, so Favre's gotta come up with something better than that.

See, he doesn't have to come up with something better than that. He's Brett-fucking-Favre and he can do whatever the hell he wants and will manipulate the media and fans into believing he is always right.

Does anyone honestly think head coach Brad Childress would ask Favre to throw one more football than he wants to? Didn't think so. Favre could easily be on a pitch count if he wanted. Heck, it could be the exact same number of throws he makes every day at Oak Grove High in Mississippi.

He just doesn't want to be subjected to the harsh conditions that training camp imposes on him. He doesn't have to be a good teammate because his coach doesn't force him to be. Brett Favre wins football games and he gets to play by a different set of rules.

My point is not that Favre's desire to skip training camp will have an adverse effect on the Vikings season, because clearly, based on their success last year, that isn't the concern. My point is that Favre is not deserving of being a team leader if he misses training camp this year. There doesn't appear to be any good reason for him to not be there, other than he can get away with it. But that means it's all about him again, as, sadly, it usually is.

This is the first column of many I want to see written like this. Some major columnist somewhere has to take Brett Favre to task for pretending he doesn't know he is coming back to the NFL just so he can skip training camp. Adrian Peterson got fined for missing a mini-camp earlier this summer and just because Favre is "undecided" doesn't mean he should get a free pass. He isn't retired and is under contract so he should be in training camp or be fined for his absence.

13 comments Holy Crap, It's Going To Be Madness Tomorrow

Brett Favre just got beat by the Saints in an overtime playoff game where HE DIDN'T GET TO TOUCH THE BALL because the Vikings lost the coin flip. Peter King is going to shit a brick or any other inanimate object because this occurred. Remember last year the shit-fit King threw when Manning didn't get to touch the ball in OT? Multiply that times 1,000 and then factor in we may get a 13 page MMQB with 12 of the pages talking about how crappy the NFL overtime is. This is the end of the NFL overtime as we know it, I have a feeling the rule will be changed.

I can't wait to read Peter King's reaction tomorrow. He is going to destroy the NFL's overtime policy because Brett Favre never touched the ball in overtime. It's madness!

9 comments John Clayton Attempts To Name Top 10 Quarterbacks of All-Time Using a Constantly Moving Standard

I don't think I have ever covered anything that John Clayton has written on this site. Acting on a tip from Martin (a thank you to him) in the comments from the Tuesday post that read:

John Clayton has an interesting article up right now on tWWL about the Top 10 Qb's of all time, and by interesting, I mean terrible. It's like reading an article by a 65 year old baseball writer. He does everything but call Brett Favre "gritty". He meanders all over the place, rates guys based on Super Bowl wins...and then doesn't.

So of course I was going to check this article out and read it all the way through...and it turns out Martin is exactly right. Welcome to the blog John Clayton, you have created a movable standard for ranking the Top 10 quarterbacks of all-time and that's a good way to get featured here. This should be fun.

I listed what I consider to be the Top 10 quarterbacks in the NFL right now last year, so I have no problem with a writer making lists giving his personal opinion on where players should be ranked. In fact if you search the Internet, you can come up with tons of lists that I probably don't have a problem with that list the Top 10 quarterbacks of all-time.

There's this one from 2006 that uses a method which puts Bart Starr 13th, Mark Brunell 23rd, and Craig Morton 26th. Do I disagree with some of these, yes, but at least the guy had a method he used to rank the quarterbacks.

There are even two I found from Bleacher Report, which sometimes isn't the best site to get information from. There was a method used here, and here. In fact the second link from Bleacher Report has a ranking that probably focuses a little bit too much on team statistics like wins and voting for the Pro Bowl, while not actually giving enough points for individual statistics. The method may be off, but it's a method.

Here's another list from 2008. He has Bart Starr and Brett Favre at #2 and #1 respectively on his list. Clearly this list is inaccurate because he states Brett Favre has two Super Bowl rings, which he doesn't, but he didn't use a movable standard so I am too lazy to attack it right now.

My personal favorite Top 10 all-time quarterback last was the anti-Brett Favre list, it made me laugh.

My point is that in making a list of the best all-time quarterbacks, you can't use a movable standard. One player can't be ranked above another player due to Super Bowl rings won, but then discount Super Bowl rings for another player. Enough exposition, let's just check John Clayton's version out.

Peyton Manning and Brett Favre have Super Bowl rings on their minds as they get ready for their respective conference championship games, but both have other things at stake Sunday.

Each future Hall of Famer can enhance his status among the greatest quarterbacks in NFL history.

Super Bowl rings should have an impact when determining the greatest player at quarterback of all-time. I don't think it should necessarily have a huge impact, so just by starting off and saying Manning or Favre can enhance their status on Clayton's list rubs me the wrong way. So because Manning wins 2 Super Bowl rings, he is now better than another quarterback? One (incredibly important, I realize that) game makes that much of a difference? I spoke briefly about this in my Peyton Manning post from a couple days ago and I still feel this way. There is more that goes into a Super Bowl winning quarterback than just the quarterback. Don't me wrong, a quarterback performing well in the Super Bowl is impressive and important, but a Super Bowl is a reflection of the team, not just the quarterback.

Terry Bradshaw won 4 Super Bowls, but does this have more to do with the fact he played with one of the greatest defenses ever, great running backs and wide receivers, or because he was personally a great quarterback? I don't have the definitive answer, but I don't think Bradshaw should be ranked above a quarterback who had better regular season numbers because he has more Super Bowl rings than the other quarterback. Of course it seems John Clayton would agree with me since he ranks Bradshaw #9 on his all-time list...but Bradshaw and Bart Starr are the only quarterbacks Clayton doesn't rank using Super Bowl wins as a major component of where he ranks on his list.

I still go back and forth on whether Unitas or Montana should be No. 1, but that's a debate for another time.

Well of course. In a list when comparing where Brett Favre and Peyton Manning rank in the Top 10 all-time of quarterbacks, which lists the quarterbacks in order of their ranking all-time, let's not worry about that whole silly debate of who is #1 all-time. What really matters is that we get the exact positioning of the quarterbacks on the rest of the list correct. Who cares that the #1 quarterback of all-time may not be correct, because we have the rest of the list correct!

(This is pretty typical ESPN thinking by the way...who cares if there isn't complete accuracy in what is being written/reported, at least part of it is factual, that's all that matters)

Currently, I have Favre at No. 5, slightly behind John Elway of the Denver Broncos and ahead of Dan Marino of the Miami Dolphins. If Favre's Minnesota Vikings beat the New Orleans Saints for the NFC title and subsequently win the Super Bowl, it might be time to start thinking about giving him the No. 4 slot.

This is what I call John Clayton's "Super Bowl standard" which he will deviate from fairly quickly.

So what we have here is that Brett Favre isn't as good of a quarterback as John Elway until he also wins a Super Bowl late in his career with a great running back and defense. At that point, once Favre has won another Super Bowl, then and only then will he be better than John Elway. It doesn't matter how Favre performs in the Super Bowl, that ring alone makes him a better quarterback than Elway because he has equaled Elway's Super Bowl ring total.

With a second Super Bowl ring, Favre could pass Elway and start drawing consideration for even a higher ranking.

Nevermind Favre had one of the greatest seasons in the history of the NFL for a 40-year-old, he can only get a higher ranking by winning another Super Bowl. I like how Clayton is using a team achievement like a Super Bowl win to make Elway better than Favre over the history of the NFL, but when Favre's team achieves another Super Bowl victory, this will propel Favre individually past Elway...even though they both have the same amount of Super Bowl rings.

Who cares that Elway was 2-3 in his career in Super Bowls, while Favre is currently 1-1. THAT team statistic doesn't matter. If Elway went 2-8 in Super Bowls in his career while Favre was 1-1, that still means Elway is a better quarterback because Elway has more victories in the Super Bowl. John Clayton doesn't care about how many losses a quarterback has in the Super Bowl, just wins. So John Clayton can't even really keep his team statistic evaluation of a quarterback consistent.

Throw in the fact Elway has been outperformed in the Super Bowl by Favre statistically in every Super Bowl they have each played in, and I think Clayton is being a little arbitrary with his evaluation of Elway over Favre. So even though Favre is a better regular season quarterback than Elway, he has lost (and appeared in) less Super Bowls than Elway, and played better than Elway when given the chance to be in the Super Bowl...he is still not as good of a quarterback as John Elway. Until he wins another Super Bowl of course.

This makes no sense to me. I am not saying I think Brett Favre is a better quarterback than John Elway, I just don't think John Clayton's method of comparing these two in any way makes sense.

Obviously, Favre beats Elway for stats.

This is madness. As I stated the other day in my Peyton Manning post, how can we just ignore the regular season statistics for a quarterback since that contains the largest sample size available to evaluate a quarterback? To make matters worse, Favre has played better in the regular season AND the postseason than Elway, yet dumbasses like John Clayton think Elway is better than Favre because Elway has one more ring than Favre. I know Elway beat Favre head-to-head in the Super Bowl, but if we are comparing these two quarterback shouldn't we compare their performances in this Super Bowl to evaluate which one was better? If so, Favre wins again.

This drives me mad. John Clayton uses team statistics in comparing Elway and Favre to the point he actually doesn't care about ranking these two quarterbacks appropriately in regard to their individual numbers, but based solely on the team statistic of "Super Bowls won." Ranking the best quarterbacks of all-time is an opinion, just have the standard being used stay consistent, that's all I ask.

As great as Elway's arm was, he had a 57 percent career pass-completion percentage. Favre has 62 percent career accuracy playing primarily in a West Coast offense.

I am pretty sure Elway ran the West Coast offense under Mike Shanahan or at least some form of it. So I don't understand what Favre playing in the West Coast offense has to do with anything.

Elway has the edge on Favre for playoff victories (14 to 13), but getting that second Super Bowl ring would put Favre ahead of Elway.

So John Clayton is ignoring nearly EVERY SINGLE INDIVIDUAL STATISTIC that says Brett Favre is better than John Elway and EVERY SINGLE POSTSEASON STATISTIC that says Favre is better than Elway, and focusing on how many postseason wins and Super Bowl wins each has to determine which quarterback was better. AND if Favre matches Elway in Super Bowl victories, then and only then, is he at that point better than Elway on John Clayton's all-time list. This is madness.

I am not saying Favre is a better all-time quarterback than Elway, I am saying the way John Clayton measures whether Elway is better than Favre is not the way to compare the two players accurately.

The Indianapolis Colts' Manning could be the biggest gainer if he gets Super Bowl ring No. 2. Currently, I have him eighth. Tom Brady of the New England Patriots is No. 7. It's such a tough list to put together that I have greats Terry Bradshaw of the Pittsburgh Steelers and Bart Starr of the Green Bay Packers at Nos. 9 and 10, respectively.

This is the John Clayton "this guy was just a better quarterback" standard being used to measure which quarterback should make his all-time Top 10 list. This is the part where Super Bowl victories are not regarded as highly and Clayton starts ranking the quarterbacks based on which quarterback was actually better individually. I think this standard should have been used the entire time to determine the order of the Top 10 all-time quarterback list.

Using John Clayton's original "Super Bowl wins" criteria for the Top 10 quarterbacks of all-time list both Bart Starr and Terry Bradshaw should be pretty high on the list since they have 6 Super Bowl titles between them. Of course now that Clayton has changed criteria these two quarterbacks are stuck at #9 and #10. A lack of consistency is a real problem with John Clayton's quarterback rankings. He can't seem to decide how to rank the quarterbacks and when he is in any doubt, he just starts using Super Bowl victories to make the final determination.

Getting that second Super Bowl ring would start the debate that Manning is ready to pass Brady.

And we are back to the "Super Bowl ring criteria" to decide which quarterback is better.

Getting that second Super Bowl ring would start the debate that Manning is ready to pass Brady. While it can be argued that Brady had more talent around him in New England,

Pretty much anything can argued, it's just whether this can be argued and actually be correct. I don't think Tom Brady had more talent around him than Peyton Manning, but it also doesn't matter to me. I think Peyton Manning is a better all-time quarterback than Tom Brady. There is always the "well, Manning made the players better" argument to discount Manning (and his overall high ranking among the all-time best quarterbacks) compared to Brady, which does make some sense, but Manning has played with Reggie Wayne, Marvin Harrison, Dallas Clark, Edgerrin James, and Brandon Stokely. At least three of those guys are Hall of Fame players or could very well have a Hall of Fame career before their careers are over. I tend to think those players are good in their own right, away from Manning.

Tom Brady has played with Randy Moss, Wes Welker, Corey Dillon, David Givens, David Patton, and Troy Brown. Except for Moss and Welker (both of which were not on any of the 3 New England Patriots Super Bowl winning teams), Brady hasn't had an inordinate amount of talent around him on offense compared to Manning...especially on the three New England Patriot Super Bowl Champion teams. I would still rank Manning over Brady on an all-time list.

Manning's 8-8 playoff record doesn't come close to Brady's 14-4 playoff mark.

John Clayton is impressed with Brady's career playoff record. If Manning wins one more Super Bowl, the fact Manning will have a 10-8 record and one less Super Bowl ring than Brady, John Clayton will completely forget about this Brady's playoff record and the amount of Super Bowl rings he has won and say Manning was the better quarterback. So:

8-8 + 1 Super Bowl ring < 14-4 + 3 Super Bowl rings

10-8 + 2 Super Bowl rings > 14-4 + 3 Super Bowl rings

Again, this doesn't make complete sense to me.

So the "Super Bowl ring" criteria means everything in comparing quarterbacks, unless it doesn't, in which case the fallback is an arbitrary count of Super Bowl rings compared to a player's regular season career. I say arbitrary because each player can move up in Clayton's rankings based arbitrarily on how many Super Bowl rings he has compared to the player above him.

Brett Favre has to equal John Elway's Super Bowl ring total to pass him while Peyton Manning doesn't have to equal Tom Brady's Super Bowl ring total to pass him. Just a little consistency is all I need.

Like Elway, Manning has seen so many rings slip away.

Elway has lost 3 Super Bowls out of 5 Super Bowls he appeared in, while Peyton Manning has appeared in 1 Super Bowl total. John Elway has appeared in AND lost two more opportunities for a Super Bowl ring than the number of Super Bowls Peyton Manning has ever appeared in.

Elway has had 5 chances in a Super Bowl to get a ring, while Peyton Manning has had one chance in a Super Bowl. There is no comparison between these two in regard to "rings slipping away" because Elway had more chances in the Super Bowl to win a ring than Manning.

Until the Colts' Jan. 16 AFC divisional playoff victory over the Baltimore Ravens, the Colts and Manning had lost three divisional round games after a bye week. Elway had three Super Bowl losses in his first seven seasons.

These are two completely and utterly different things. There is a huge difference in losing in the Super Bowl and losing in the Divisional Round...like two victories in each year's playoff difference. I would say by playing in 5 Super Bowls and winning 2 of them, compared to Manning's one appearance and ring, Elway actually had more rings slip away.

His offensive line might be the least talented in the playoffs. Because of that line, Manning can't count on a consistent ground game to help his play-action passing attack.

Don't tell Gregg Easterbrook this. He thinks the Colts have one of the best offensive lines in the playoffs just by the fact they are in the AFC Championship Game.

It would be easy for Manning to pass Brady on my list if he gets a third Super Bowl ring.

I like how John Clayton is pretty much only comparing quarterbacks using how they fared in the playoffs. Why doesn't he just call it "The Top 10 all-time best quarterbacks in the playoffs in NFL history?" Isn't that what he is doing? Where in this entire column have we seen Clayton compare these players using their regular season statistics? This isn't really a "Top 10 quarterbacks of all-time" list if he is only comparing postseason statistics is it?

In fact, if Manning could win the Super Bowl this year and get one more before he retires, I'd have to consider him for my top three, challenging Unitas, Montana and Graham.

The idea of having Manning pass these guys passed solely on Super Bowl rings is driving me crazy. If Super Bowl rings are SO important to the "greatest quarterback of all-time" argument that a superior quarterback with 1 ring is ranked below an inferior quarterback with 2 rings (unless it is Terry Bradshaw or Bart Starr of course) then just base the entire "greatest quarterback of all-time" argument on Super Bowl rings. Of course John Clayton contradicts his own standard by saying Manning could pass Brady with 1 more Super Bowl ring, which would still give him one less Super Bowl ring than Brady has.

1. Johnny Unitas, Baltimore Colts and San Diego Chargers:
2. Joe Montana, San Francisco 49ers and Kansas City Chiefs:
Flip these around and they will be accurate. Of course John Clayton has made it clear a list of the Top 10 quarterbacks of all-time isn't the best place to decide who the best quarterback of all-time is. I am not sure when a better time to decide who is #1 would be.

3. Otto Graham, Cleveland Browns:
Under John Clayton's measurement of Peyton Manning's career where he is docked spots in the Top 10 due to his poor career playoff record, I wonder how Otto Graham, who was a stellar 4-3 in his career in the playoffs is #3 on Clayton's list?

4 John Elway, Denver Broncos: He won two Super Bowls in his final two seasons to legitimize one of the NFL's greatest careers. He led the Broncos to five Super Bowl appearances.
I think it is interesting how John Clayton is giving complete credit to John Elway for his 2 Super Bowl victories but not taking away any credit for the 3 Super Bowl losses the Broncos had in the prime of Elway's career. So basically: The 3 Super Bowl losses weren't Elway's fault, but the 2 Super Bowl victories were won because of John Elway. It's always the sign of a good player ranking system where a quarterback gets credit for games won but not blame for games lost.

6. Dan Marino, Miami Dolphins: Marino had one of the greatest arms in the history of the game. It's a shame he went to only one Super Bowl.

And because he went to one Super Bowl, he can't move further up John Clayton's list. It's a shame this entire list is based on what the quarterback did in the postseason.

7. Tom Brady, New England Patriots: His three Super Bowl rings and 14-4 playoff record ranks him ahead of Peyton Manning, but Manning is on the rise.

Oh yeah, that's right. Peyton Manning may have better overall career statistics compared to Tom Brady, but Brady's 3 Super Bowl rings ranks him over Manning. John Clayton will not count Manning's regular season statistics until Manning wins another Super Bowl, at which point John Clayton will then start to count that Manning was a better regular season quarterback than Manning in favor of Manning...but not until he gets that 2nd Super Bowl ring. Got it?

9. Terry Bradshaw, Pittsburgh Steelers: Because the Steelers won their first two Super Bowls relying on the Steel Curtain defense and a solid running game, Bradshaw might have slipped through the cracks among the all-time greats.

So in essence John Clayton is giving credit to other quarterbacks for Super Bowl victories, as if they accomplished it on their own, but he ranks Bradshaw lower than other quarterbacks because of the supporting cast he had around him for two of the Steelers Super Bowl victories.

Actually I am doing a lot of writing when I should just say that any list which doesn't have Steve Young or Fran Tarkenton on the list isn't a Top 10 quarterbacks of all-time list in my mind. Either way, John Clayton has posted a great list of the Top 10 quarterbacks of all-time if you only compared them using postseason statistics and changed the standard by which you compared the players for each player. This was a lazy list by John Clayton that relied too much on postseason numbers and a movable standard.

-One more thing I wanted to show everyone. Everyone who reads this probably knows I greatly dislike Leonard Little and think he has gotten off incredibly easy for his vehicular murder of another driver while he was drunk (and then he drove drunk AGAIN and got caught)...well I saw this tidbit on Profootballweekly.com the other day:

Word out of Rams Park is that the odds are about "60-40" that veteran DE Leonard Little will call it a career. There is also a possibility, however, that Little, an unrestricted free agent, could sign with Carolina. Little lives in Charlotte and would be reunited with former Rams D-line coach Brian Baker.

Leonard Little lives in Charlotte? And I have driven those streets at night innocently without knowing he was on those streets with me? How did I miss this? More importantly, if Leonard Little played for the Panthers, what would my reaction be?

I wouldn't boycott the team, but I also couldn't cheer for him. Fortunately, the Panthers don't seem to be in the market for an old, defensive lineman on the last legs of his career, but the very idea he could be in Carolina has caused me great consternation.

I really, really, really am not a Leonard Little fan.