Showing posts with label Green Bay Packers. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Green Bay Packers. Show all posts

Tuesday, December 2, 2014

5 comments MMQB Review: Super Bowl Preview, But Maybe Not Edition

Peter King was excited that Jay Gruden showed off his leadership abilities by making comments that threw Robert Griffin under the bus in last week's MMQB. He also clarified that while he was picking the Ravens to lose to the Saints, this didn't mean he thought the Ravens weren't the better team. I'm sure that made more sense in Peter's head. This week Peter talks about the Patriots-Packers game being a Super Bowl preview (so this means the Patriots' dynasty ISN'T over?), is giddy that Johnny Manziel made his first appearance in an NFL game, admits to being used as a conduit for a smear campaign, and somehow manages to compare Robert Griffin to Ryan Leaf. No agenda for Peter King though. Not at all.

Three months of the 2014 season down, two to go. Two months from tonight, in Arizona, Super Bowl XLIX will be played. There can’t have been a better Super Bowl preview than the game played in Green Bay between the Patriots and the Packers. So even. So well-played.

The NFL should just stop the season right now and make sure these two teams play in the Super Bowl. That's what the people want and that's what the people should get.

Meeting for the first time. Brady is 37. Rodgers turns 31 tomorrow. AFC meets NFC once every four years. That means, at least in this tableau, we’ll never see this again, unless Brady pulls a George Blanda and plays until he’s 45—or plays somewhere else.

So even if these two teams meet in the Super Bowl it won't be the same because it's not at Lambeau Field.

From late in the second quarter, when the Patriots pulled to within 16-14, I got the feeling this was going to come down to the end.

Peter King with his predictive skills! It's a close game late in the second quarter, perhaps this game will be close all the way until the end. I bet Peter wrote this down in a notebook so he could be sure to mention he thought this would be a close game. Gregg Easterbrook would be proud.

And the longer the game went, I was convinced that’s how it would go. And if we were lucky, maybe we’d get to see it again … two months from now, when the Patriots, if it happened, would play in Glendale for the first time since Tyree Velcro Sunday, when the 18-0 season went up in smoke in the last Super Bowl in Arizona.

Two things:

1. If the Super Bowl isn't played at Lambeau Field then it doesn't matter.

2. I thought the Cardinals were going to be playing in the Super Bowl in their home stadium? You know, Bruce Arians can win a Super Bowl with Drew Stanton. That whole thing. It's a thing that really could have happened. Is Peter giving up on that one so easily?

We’re getting way ahead of ourselves.

Yes, because "we" are writing this column then "we" are most definitely getting ahead of ourselves. Not Peter, "we" are.

We start in Lambeau. Green Bay sprinted to a 13-0 lead. New England got touchdowns from its typical bargain-basement types, Brandon Bolden and Brandon LaFell, to rally to within 16-14. 

Apparently the 3 year contract for $9 million received by LaFell is considered "bargain basement" by Peter King. At this point, he's just ignoring the truth and trying to make the narrative fit how he wants it to fit. LaFell was a great signing, but he's not a "bargain basement" type of player. The narrative says the Patriots always get contributions from unknown players, so Peter has to push this narrative even in the face of it being false.

On fourth-and-18, Belichick—rightly—sent out the field-goal team. Stephen Gostkowski, a worthy heir to Adam Vinatieri, wasn’t worthy here. Wide right.

Gregg Easterbrook would argue the football gods punished Belichick for not going for it in this situation. After all, if he had gone for it then it would have told the Patriots that Belichick was very serious about winning this football game. Alas, the football gods chortled as the kick went wide right when obviously the Patriots should have gone for it on fourth-and-18.

Green Bay ball. One first down was all Rodgers needed. Seemed easy enough, until it got to be third-and-four, with 2:28 left, at the Packer 43. New England was out of timeouts. This was it. Make a play, Rodgers kneels for three snaps and it’s over. Don’t make it, and you give it back to one of the best quarterbacks of our lives, pacing the New England sidelines, dying for one last chance.

Literally dying. Tom Brady passed away because he wanted one last chance. Bill Belichick will refuse to attend the funeral for Brady because he wasn't tough enough to not die during a game and every NFL writer on Twitter will mention "that's so Belichick" as he orders to Patriots players to attend practice rather than Brady's funeral.

Once clear of Hightower, a step or two past him, Rodgers zinged the ball toward Cobb, maybe two yards past the first-down line. Now Devin McCourty came off Adams and joined Ryan in coverage of Cobb. But McCourty was just a split-second too late to break it up.

The picture you are painting, Peter. It makes an Ansel Adams picture look like a nine year old child's drawing created using water colors bought from Michael's.

What do you remember when the ball’s coming toward you?

What kind of question is this, Peter? What's he remember? Cobb probably remembers that he needs to catch the fucking ball because the game will be over if he does.

Were you feeling the coverage on you—physically? Or do you just know they’re there?

Another tough question. I think Cobb felt the coverage more meta-physically. Perhaps 33% literally, 33% ethereally, and 34% from memory. Sort of how Peter feels the presence of Brett Favre wherever he goes. 

“Bleep!’’ Brady said on the New England sideline. Or something to that effect. He said it three times.

Important to know when telling this story.

One team made the play. The plays, actually. The other didn’t.

But that doesn’t mean in two months the same team will make them if they meet again. It was that close Sunday in Green Bay. It was that good.

So Peter means because the Packers made enough plays to win this game, this means if these two teams meet again in the Super Bowl that the Packers won't automatically make all the plays to win that game too? What? This is completely new information to me. I thought because the Packers won on Sunday then Tom Brady and the Patriots would never beat the Packers no matter how many times they played them. 

Five thoughts on the Rice verdict.

I was out of pocket Friday when Judge Barbara Jones issued her ruling that Ray Rice should be reinstated immediately.

We all know that Peter is at his most dangerous when he is out of the pocket, writing columns on the run.

But after I read her 17-page ruling, I was struck by the common sense of it,

"I'm shocked, no I am struck, by the fact there are other human beings who have the same amount of knowledge and common sense that I have. This Barbara Jones must be a special judge to have such common sense. Why haven't we heard of her before?"

1. How could the NFL possibly think that, after giving Rice a two-game ban to start, the continuation of a ban that reached 11 games was in any way fair? We all heard Roger Goodell say he got it wrong when he gave Rice two games back in July. Okay. Two games bad. Six games good. What is the possible justification for extending the ban to 11—and, if Jones hadn’t ruled when she did, maybe longer? The facts are these: Goodell saw the video of Rice dragging the limp body of his fiancĂ©e out of the Atlantic City elevator, then heard from him that she got that way because he made physical contact with her in said elevator. Goodell said he never saw the second video, the one of Rice making contact with Janay Palmer (now his wife).

Don't worry, after getting this story wrong two or three times, Peter is TOTALLY going to get back to figuring out whether Roger Goodell lied about seeing the elevator videotape before making his ruling on Rice's suspension. As soon as Peter gets done being out of pocket, he'll get right on this.

2. Rice’s future.

I spoke to two NFL general managers over the weekend about Rice, neither of whom is interested in signing him but who believe Rice will be in some team’s training camp in 2015...Having said all that, this GM did admit that Adrian Peterson would be different, because Peterson is closer to a premier player now than Rice. For the football advantages, the headaches with Peterson in your locker room would be more palatable than with Rice. I think it’s a long shot that Rice signs with any team before the end of the season, and as I said on NBC last night, there’s a slim chance it would be New Orleans and much less in Indianapolis, the two teams mentioned by Adam Schefter as sniffing around Rice.

Other than the Saints being the perfect location for Rice, I bet Ryan Grigson won't sign Rice simply because the fun of acquiring a running back is giving up a first round draft pick in order to acquire that running back. There's no fun in signing Rice without a first round draft pick being involved.

4. The judge in the Rice case didn’t accuse the league of any wrongdoing, but there was one striking piece of evidence she uncovered that has overtones of the Bountygate investigation. Mike Florio of Pro Football Talk beat me to this over the weekend. Jones said in her report that Goodell called a meeting after the more ominous TMZ video aired in September, “at which they looked back at the notes of the June 16 meeting [with Rice] and ‘made sure all of us had the same recollection,’ ” according to Jones. That reminded me (and Florio) of the league finding fault with New Orleans coach Sean Payton for “instructing assistants to make sure our ducks are in a row.” Those sound like the same thing to me. They sound like each side is trying to get its stories straight.

Roger Goodell is offended that anyone thinks he saw the videotape before making his ruling on a two game suspension for Ray Rice. Goodell can't control EVERYTHING that happens in the league office, well except for those things he insists on having absolute control over like player punishments. But in this case he didn't know about the videotape, so let's all move on and forget about it all. Look! Something shiny! (Peter King runs and looks for that something shiny)

Finally on this topic: I quoted a source in July as saying Janay Rice made a moving case for leniency for Ray Rice during the June 16 meeting. My source was incorrect.

Not to kick Peter while he's down, but I think it was pretty well known back in the summer that Peter's source was wrong. It's probably that same source that gave Peter an indication the Ravens were going to allow Joe Flacco to leave in free agency after winning the Super Bowl.

I think I will kick Peter a little bit while he's down. I have stated in the past that Peter essentially reports what he is told, and seems to be a mouthpiece for whoever is giving him that information. He accepts what he is told at face value and doesn't seem to question much. It seems to me that Peter was clearly used in a smear campaign by the NFL. Peter didn't just quote a source in that July column on the Rice suspension, he essentially explained the reason for the two game suspension was due to Janay Rice begging for leniency and various other statements Janay Rice made to Goodell. Now it turns out that's not true and Peter seems perfectly content being used as a mouthpiece for the purposes of others.

According to Judge Jones’ report, Janay Rice was asked only one question during the hearing—how she felt—and she cried and said, “I’m just ready for it to be over.” I regret the error, and should have vetted the story further before publishing the account of one source.

I don't know, that sort of makes it worse in my mind. Why would Roger Goodell and the NFL have Janay Rice come to the hearing if they were only going to ask her one question in the presence of her husband, who had allegedly struck her? Oh yes, that's right, because Roger Goodell is an idiot who wants complete control over player punishment, but without all that needless bullshit like actually understanding the nuance and personal feelings involved with the crime. He seems to think in a domestic violence situation that the victim will tell the truth about his/her relationship with the accused. Goodell was over his head, but he lied and misled the public about what he knew and when, but that doesn't matter because it's all forgotten now.

Watching the end of the Bengals-Bucs game Sunday, it looked like Cincinnati was on its way to a loss. The Bengals were up 14-13, but with 26 seconds left, Bucs quarterback Josh McCown completed a 21-yard pass to Louis Murphy that advanced the ball to the Cincinnati 20. Now all the Bucs had to do was let the clock run down a few more seconds, spike the ball and summon the kicker, Patrick Murphy, for a 37-yard field goal on a calm weather afternoon in Tampa. The Bucs gathered at the line, and suddenly the red challenge flag flew from the Cincinnati sideline. Coach Marvin Lewis had thrown it. One problem: You can’t throw the challenge flag inside of two minutes of either half.

My first thought: Marvin is on the Competition Committee. Not many people in the game know the rules better. He knows you can’t throw the challenge flag inside the two-minute warning.

Then what could this evil genius be up to then?

The Bucs had had 12 men on the offensive side of the ball on the pass play to Murphy. Oniel Cousins came in as an extra offensive lineman/tight end, and rookie wideout Robert Herron, whom Cousins was replacing, just didn’t leave the field.

Now for the strange thing: Bill Leavy’s officiating crew missed the 12 men.

Is it strange that an NFL officiating crew missed this penalty?

I still find it amazing that the four officials on the field assigned to count bodies before every play didn’t have the Bucs with 12 men on the field—and may not have had them with 12 men on the second play either, if no Bucs player exited or entered the field before the snap of the ball.

Clearly Peter King hasn't watched some of the officiating in the NFL. It's the end of the game here and the officials are probably more worried about other penalties and making sure the ball gets spotted correctly and quickly. Therefore, counting the players on the field didn't seem important to them.

The St. Louis cops are ticked off at the Rams. The Rams hosted 50 business owners and clean-up-crew workers from Ferguson at the 52-0 rout of the Raiders—people who’d had their businesses torched or ruined in the wake of the announcement that officer Darren Wilson would not be indicted in the death of Michael Brown.

But five players touched a nerve before the game, entering the field with their hands raised in the familiar Hands up, don’t shoot mode of Ferguson protesters.

The SLPOA stressed that forensics tests didn’t support the claim that Brown held his hands up. After the game, one of the Rams in the demonstration, wideout Kenny Britt, said the players weren’t taking sides. “Not at all,’’ Britt said. “We just wanted to let the community know we support them.”

Well yeah, that's exactly taking a side since the "Hands up, don't shoot" pose is a form of protest. I wouldn't expect Peter to push the point, especially with a Rams player, since Peter tends to only ask softball questions. It's just that pose is widely seen as a form of protest in support of Michael Brown. If Britt wanted to let the community know he supports them then that's fine. Just own how you are supporting the community and don't act like you aren't taking sides.

The officers said they would demand a “very public apology” from the Rams and the NFL today.

The officers should have much better things to worry about rather than demanding a "very public apology" from athletes for exercising their opinion.

Cleveland’s backup quarterback might not be Cleveland’s backup quarterback after coach Mike Pettine and offensive coordinator Kyle Shanahan look at the tape from Buffalo today. They’ll like what they saw on Manziel’s first drive, an eight-play, 80-yard, no-huddle Manziel-being-Manziel touchdown drive. But then Manziel fumbled on the next series under a heavy rush, and overall, his 13 snaps over 12 minutes were a mixed bag. What else would you expect against a front seven that brings constant pressure, after not playing for two months? That’s why I’d be very surprised if Manziel wasn’t given a shot to start Sunday at home against Indianapolis.

What Peter really means here is that he REALLY, REALLY HOPES the Browns choose to start Manziel because it will give him more to write about in MMQB. So Peter thinks Manziel should start, probably based mostly on selfish reasons in order to get a good story.

At 7-5, Cleveland can afford maybe one loss down the stretch. Hoyer, over his last four games, is a 53-percent passer with one touchdown and six interceptions. As good as he was in the first half of the season in solidifying Cleveland’s shaky offense without Josh Gordon, he hasn’t been good enough over the past month, or in the two games since Gordon came back. Manziel should get a shot, and now.

Compare Peter's statements here to his statements just a few weeks ago when he was shocked, SHOCKED, that the Browns had not had contract negotiations with Brian Hoyer since early Summer or late Spring. Peter's opinion changes dramatically in a month's time. One month he is amazed the Browns haven't had contract extension talks with Brian Hoyer, and the next month he's advocating that Brian Hoyer be benched for Johnny Manziel. This is why Peter King is a sportswriter and not running an NFL team. It's his job to react, regardless of a lack of consistency in his reactions.

McCoy will start against the Rams Sunday. “Yeah, yeah,’’ said coach Jay Gruden. “Colt competed. There are some things I wish we would have done differently, play calls and execution-wise, but I feel like he competed and did a nice job out there.’’ McCoy, after a slow start, threw for 392 yards with three touchdowns and no picks. In three games this year, McCoy has completed an eye-opening 75.3 percent of his throws, for a passer rating of 113.5. I still think Washington needs to play Griffin before the end of the year. They either need to see more of him before deciding whether to keep him—or, if they’ve already decided to jettison him, showcase him in a positive light so he can fetch a better return in trade.

Or possibly the Redskins have seen enough of Griffin and don't want to ruin any trade value he may have by putting him back on the field. Once Griffin goes to the Rams, I imagine Peter will like Griffin a lot more and possibly regret comparing him to Ryan Leaf (still to come in this MMQB).

There’s a reason to watch Dolphins-Jets tonight.

Oh, well I guess I watch the game if Peter King says there is a reason to watch.

One: It’s always good to see Cameron Wake play. One of the most underappreciated defensive players in the league.

Yes, if only "we" paid more attention to Cameron Wake then he wouldn't be so under appreciated. Unfortunately, "we" don't talk about Wake enough, so he doesn't get the attention he deserves. Peter thinks someone (but not him, of course, any talk about Wake would take up room normally reserved for drooling over J.J. Watt) should change this.

Then Peter has Luke Tasker, who plays in the CFL, write a little bit about the Grey Cup. To Peter's credit, he is trying to gain attention for the CFL. Unfortunately, I know nothing about the CFL and Tasker's team lost.

Fine Fifteen

1. Green Bay (9-3).
2. New England (9-3).

I'm surprised that Peter didn't have New England above Green Bay because he thought the Patriots were a better team, but it's just that the Packers happened to win this game. That's the sort of reasoning he used last week to pick the Saints to beat the Ravens on "Monday Night Football."

No one quite believes how fast Jordy Nelson is until he buzzes past a very fast corner like Darrelle Revis. That’s one takeaway from Sunday’s deserved 26-21 nail-biter. Another one: Never thought when I walked out of CenturyLink Field on opening night, after the Pack’s 36-16 loss to Seattle, that I’d have Green Bay No. 1 in the Fine Fifteen in Week 13, or in any week this year.

This shows just how reactive and knee-jerk Peter King is in MMQB. After one game, the opening game of the year, he thought there was no way the Packers could ever be the best team in the NFL. Granted, one game had been played in the entire NFL season, but Peter had already written off the Packers as ever being the best team in the NFL during the 2014 season. I'm not sure it gets more knee-jerk then that.

4. Philadelphia (9-3). Best thing about Mark Sanchez’s game on Thursday: one negative play. Zero lost fumbles, zero interceptions, one sack taken. Also liked his 28 rushing yards. Just okay throwing the ball, though.

Really? 20 of 29 for 217 yards and one touchdown is "just okay"? That's a typical game for Peter's hero and guy who he wonders ever feels any pressure, Russell Wilson. I don't think Peter would call Wilson "just okay" when he puts those type of numbers up.

5. Seattle (8-4). Seahawks are on the kind of run-of-schedule that reminds me when I used to cover the Giants for Newsday,and Bill Parcells would say the reason the NFC East teams were always so well-prepared for the playoffs would be the gauntlet they’d have to survive in the regular season... I think they have a good chance to make the kind of noise the Giants made as a 2007 roadie through the playoffs.

The Patriots-Packers game has the chance to be a Super Bowl preview, but Peter also thinks that the Seahawks could make it to the Super Bowl from the NFC. I realize Peter isn't actively making predictions, but it's sort of funny to me that he has the Seahawks making a Super Bowl run on the road like the 2007 Giants in the same column he has the Patriots and Packers meeting again in the Super Bowl.

8. San Diego (8-4). Remember the 37-0 loss in Miami, making the Chargers a feeble 5-4 entering their bye? Remember how we all wrote them off?

Nope, I remember YOU wrote them off, but I don't remember writing the Chargers off. In fact, I remember Peter writing this:

6. I think we can pretty safely say this morning that the Philip Rivers for MVP campaign has gone pffffffffft. It’s over.

And then I wrote this:

This is also an example of where Peter isn't looking at the entirety of the situation. So if Philip Rivers' MVP campaign is over, does that mean his playing outstanding during the last half of the season wouldn't push him right back in the MVP race? Of course not, but Peter is just making a knee-jerk reaction.

Yep. Peter's massive ego and apparently belief that he speaks for everyone who reads MMQB allows him to conclude that because HE wrote the Chargers off every other person wrote the Chargers off too. Peter has Bill Simmons Disease where when he's wrong then "we" were wrong, even though it was Peter making the inaccurate statement.

Well, they continued the tightrope walk back into goodness. They’re in the playoffs if the season was 12 games long.

And if the season were one game and there were no other teams in the NFL other than the Packers and Seahawks, then Seattle would have won back-to-back Super Bowls.

10. Arizona (9-3).Not saying the sky is falling or anything, but Drew Stanton is struggling mightily, and they’ve lost two straight with him playing.

I'm not saying "we" were wrong about the Cardinals, but they can't win a Super Bowl with Stanton as their quarterback. Not now, not ever. I still it is hilarious that Peter let that comment by Bruce Arians go unchallenged. It doesn't even take a hostile follow-up question to ask why Arians seemed so deluded.

T-15. Buffalo (7-5). That defensive front is downright scary. Ask Hoyer and Manziel.

Okay, I will Peter! (goes to look for Brian Hoyer and Johnny Manziel's phone number)

T-15. Baltimore (7-5).Yes, John Harbaugh, that was pass interference, absolutely, on Anthony Levine that led to the crushing winning TD.

By the way, there are 16 teams in the "Fine Fifteen." It's bad enough Peter can't even put one player as the Offensive/Defensive/Special Teams Player of the Week, but he can't even put only 15 teams in his "Fine Fifteen." 

(Still searching for Johnny Manziel and Brian Hoyer's phone number, I know I had it somewhere)

Offensive Players of the Week
 
(With apologies to Ryan Fitzpatrick, who deserves better after throwing six touchdown passes off the bench against Tennessee—but I chose two players here who were huge in big wins for their teams in Week 13.)

(Bengoodfella throws up his hands wondering why this award wouldn't go to one of the best offensive players of the week. That is the name of the award after all.)

Aaron Rodgers, quarterback, Green Bay. He’s had better statistical days. But Rodgers, against a team that won seven straight and allowed less than 20 points per game in the process, had eight significant possessions—possessions when they were trying to score in the 26-21 win over New England at Lambeau Field, in what Mike Florio called Super Bowl 48.5. 

Until the Seahawks make their run to the Super Bowl like the 2007 Giants did.

Defensive Players of the Week
 
J.J. Watt, defensive end, Houston. He could—should—win this every week. (Except, maybe, when Houston has a bye.) Against Tennessee, he had his typical game of greatness: two sacks, six quarterback hits, four quarterback pressures, a forced fumble, a fumble recovery, and a one-yard touchdown reception, when he lined up at tight end and leaked out of the formation. We are watching an amazing career unfold, and we should appreciate it every week.

Yes, "we" should appreciate watching J.J. Watt's career unfold. Why don't "we"? More importantly, I look forward to sportswriters spending the next decade trying to top each other with "How great is J.J. Watt" stories that essentially will become fan-fiction at some point.

Special Teams Players of the Week

Adam Thielen, wide receiver; Jasper Brinkley, linebacker, Minnesota. They blocked two Brad Nortman punts in the first 21 minutes, and both were returned for touchdowns—the first by Thielen himself and the next by Everson Griffen. How amazing is this: Minnesota hadn’t blocked a punt and scored a touchdown on it in 28 years … and the Vikings did it twice in the first quarter and a half Sunday.

Yeah, it's fucking amazing. Consider me impressed. I hate life.

(Continues searching for Johnny Manziel and Brian Hoyer's number, because Peter asked me to ask them a question and it's only polite if I do so)

“Days like today are what I live for. Literally. This is my life.”
 
—J.J. Watt, after another performance we just shake our heads at: two sacks, a touchdown catch, and a bunch of other flora and fauna you already read about in Defensive Players of the Week.

That's pretty sad if you think about it. If J.J. Watt literally lives to play football, then this doesn't bode well for his life after football. I guess I'm supposed to be impressed, but unless Watt is using hyperbole, it sounds like he would be the kind of athlete who gets depressed once he retires.

“Based on what I’ve seen, he would not be my quarterback next year.”
 
—Ron Jaworski, video-aholic, on the Mike & Mike show on ESPN Radio, on Robert Griffin III.

I feel like I can't ever read Ron Jaworski's opinion without remembering that he said Colin Kaepernick had a chance to be the best quarterback ever. It ruins his opinion for me. 

Chip Kelly Wisdom of the Week

The Philadelphia coach, on either the difficulty of preparing for a Thursday game on a short week, or the tradition of Thanksgiving Day football, which the Eagles experienced against Dallas:
 
“Just tell us when we’re going to play. We don’t really read much into it or wax nostalgic. It’s not like we’re going to have a cornucopia and a turkey on the sideline. We’re just going to go play football.”

Brilliance. I can't find Johnny Manziel or Brian Hoyer's number to ask them how scary the Bills defensive front is, but maybe Peter should suggest I give Chip Kelly a call to tell him how brilliant I find him to be. Now if I could just find Chip Kelly's phone number. I'm terrible with phone numbers. Peter should just ask my wife and she will tell him. 



This is one of those statistics that doesn't really mean as much as it sounds like it means. Basically, the correlation between Bruce Miller playing 40% of the snaps and the 49ers winning games is really a correlation between the 49ers running the football (which tends to happen more often when they are winning already and Miller is naturally on the field more as a fullback when the 49ers are running the football more often) and winning football games. 




Pelini was fired by Nebraska after going 9-3 this year. That makes sense, the same way it made sense after Frank Solich went 58-19 at Nebraska and got fired.


Peter's lack of college football knowledge shows through here. Bo Pelini is not comparable to Frank Solich. Solich was 58-19 in six seasons with one Big 12 title, three Big 12 North titles, one National Championship appearance, and was 2-3 in bowl games with appearances in the Rose and Fiesta Bowl. Bo Pelini was 66-27 in seven seasons had zero Big 12 titles, three Big 12 North titles and was 3-3 in bowl games with the most prestigious bowl game he took Nebraska to being the Gator Bowl. This doesn't factor in the instances where Pelini acted like an ass on/off the field or bad mouthed Cornhuskers fans on tape. It sounds crazy to fire Pelini, but there isn't a comparison to firing Solich. Firing Solich may have been a mistake, while firing Pelini is a sign the Nebraska Athletic Director thought the program was stagnant, especially since the football team had lost four games every single year Pelini had been the head coach. 

Ten Things I Think I Think

1. I think this is what I liked about Week 13:

e. Cameron Jordan, the Saints’ precocious defensive end, with a deflection and interception of Ben Roethlisberger. Tremendous athletic play.

Jordan is 25 years old. Don't call him "precocious." I have a feeling that Peter doesn't even know what this word means. The word means "to exhibit mature qualities at a young age" and Cameron Jordan is an NFL defensive end, which means he isn't too young to be intercepting passes nor too young to deflect passes. If Cameron Jordan were 13 years old, it would be different, but Peter insists on giving Jordan child-like qualities for some reason.

g. Tre Mason, the 75th pick in the draft, playing like the fifth, sprinting 89 yards for a touchdown against Oakland.

The Rams are a team on the rise!

i. Adam Schefter reporting that Ray Rice has drawn interest from four teams about playing this season, including Indianapolis and New Orleans.

I'm not entirely sure why he would like Schefter making this report, but there are so many things about Peter I have given up understanding.

o. Former Steeler Keenan Lewis sniffing out a Pittsburgh flea-flicker and preventing Ben Roethlisberger from hitting an open Antonio Brown for a touchdown.

And I just read something in "Sports Illustrated" about how offensive genius Todd Haley had started cutting out trick plays and going with more basic plays the Steelers could successfully run.

q. The jet-sweep touchdown by Tavon Austin. When the Rams drafted him in 2013, this kind of make-’em-miss sweep is exactly what GM Les Snead had in mind.

The pay-off in making this draft pick is now complete. No further criticism should be warranted.

r. Beautiful interception by Cleveland’s Jim Leonhard (has he played on every team in the league, or is it just me?) off Kyle Orton.

I don't know. I'll call Brian Hoyer or Johnny Manziel and see if they can ask Leonhard.

2. I think this is what I didn’t like about Week 13:

a. The Cardinals, down 17-0 before Georgia Domians were all in their seats.

A defensive-dependent team with a defense that has suffered several injuries to important players with a ball-control quarterback and no running game...who saw this coming? (raises hand)

k. Why in the world did Andy Dalton, down 10-0, throw a vital ball into double coverage at Tampa?

Yeah, but he was super-clutch and led a comeback. That has to count for something, doesn't it?

3. I think there will be much discussion and little action about playoff reseeding, because owners are too in love with the guaranteed home playoff game for winning a division. But—and this is a significant but—what could change that is a major embarrassment. Such as, let’s say, 12-4 Seattle having to play at 6-10 Atlanta in a Wild Card game. Even the owner most in love with the current system will have to admit this shouldn’t happen.

Playing devi's advocate, what if the Falcons beat the Seahawks in this game? Would that change anyone's mind about playoff reseeding?

4. I think Jemele Hill of ESPN wrote a great story in crafting Janay Rice’s words. Janay Rice comes across as smart and strong. The two things from her piece that were most interesting to me:

On the public perception of her: “I still find it hard to accept being called a ‘victim.’ I know there are so many different opinions out there about me—that I’m weak, that I’m making excuses and covering up abuse—and that some people question my motives for staying with Ray. However, I’m a strong woman and I come from a strong family. Never in my life have I seen abuse, nor have I seen any woman in my family physically abused. I have always been taught to respect myself and to never allow myself to be disrespected, especially by a man. Growing up, my father used to always tell my sister and I, ‘We don’t need a man to make us, if anything it’s the man who needs us.’ ”

It's interesting only in that a woman who was abused or is currently abused by her spouse or boyfriend would be saying these same things. An abused spouse would deny continued abuse is occurring, explain how they are a strong woman (thereby proving it by making the decision to stay with the abusing spouse), and say she would never allow herself to be disrespected. Anyone who has met or worked around abused women know this to be true. Janay Rice's statements are interesting, but not in the way Peter thinks they are.

6. I think I hope I’m wrong about this, because Robert Griffin III seems like a good person. But I can’t help but conjure comparisons to Ryan Leaf.

Yep, you are very wrong about this. Even during his worst season, Griffin has not been as bad as Ryan Leaf was in his best season. But hey, Peter has to make silly, knee-jerk comparisons. It's probably in his contract that he do so.

Griffin has already had more success than Leaf had in his career, but there are a few things that are a little too close for comfort:

Leaf was picked second overall in 1998 after the Chargers traded up to get him. Griffin was picked second overall in 2012 after Washington traded up to get him.

This is more of a coincidence than it is a reflection on how Griffin is like Ryan Leaf on the football field. Peter should be smarter than this.

Leaf labored in the shadow of a perfect Colts quarterback picked one spot before him, Peyton Manning. Griffin labors in the shadow of a perfect Colts quarterback picked one spot before him, Andrew Luck.

Yet again, a coincidence that has nothing to do with Griffin's performance on the field compared to Ryan Leaf's performance on the field. 

Leaf helped get one coach (June Jones) fired, and was on his second (Mike Riley) when San Diego yanked him from the lineup in year three in favor of Moses Moreno, then released him after his third season. Griffin helped get one coach (Mike Shanahan) fired and was on his second (Jay Gruden) when Washington yanked him from the lineup in year three in favor of Colt McCoy. After the season with Griffin, who knows?

Bad teams get head coaches fired. It's not always a reflection on the quarterback. Did Peyton Manning get Jim Mora fired after the 2001 season?

But I want to be fair about this: Griffin, if he never plays another snap, has had a far superior career to Leaf.

"Here's a direct comparison between two players. I want to be fair though, so ignore my direct comparison between these two players because the comparisons are just coincidences."

Griffin was Offensive Rookie of the Year and has won 13 games, with a 90.8 rating. Leaf won four NFL games, with a 50.0 rating.

So stating Griffin "conjures up comparisons to Ryan Leaf" and "there are a few things that are a little too close for comfort" are completely off-base statements as compared to their performance on the field? So basically, they aren't like each other at all and there should be zero comparisons of Robert Griffin to Ryan Leaf made?

7. I think, to answer the questions of many from the other day about three NFC-only games on Thanksgiving, the NFL planned the holiday to be a rivalry day: Bears-Lions, Eagles-Cowboys, Seahawks-49ers. To the many who criticized the nightcap because it’s not a “natural” rivalry like the others (and I got a lot of that on Twitter), I would say there’s a good chance the Niners and Seahawks are the best current rivalry in football. I mean, today.

Oh, so the Seahawks and 49ers aren't the best current rivalry twenty years from now? What about being the best current rivalry 20 years ago? So by "current rivalry" you mean "today." Thanks for clearing that up. How precocious of Peter.

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

a. Smart column by the great Bob Ryan about what to do on the baseball Hall of Fame ballot with suspected PED users. Some lessons in here for football too.

It was a good column, but there is already a plaque in the Hall of Fame explaining the PED era in baseball. So "what to do" has sort of already been done.

f. Notre Dame … I do not understand.

It seems there are quite a few things you don't understand, Peter. That's okay and thanks for being specific in this instance.

i. Coffeenerdness: Personal record for espresso shots in one day: nine. I set it Sunday. Hey, it’s a long season.

Geez, calm the fuck down, man.

j. Beernerdness: My favorite three beers from the Thanksgiving holiday:

Zoe, an American Amber Ale, by Maine Beer Company. So I’m a sucker for their beer; it’s all so good. I liked the Pale Ale a little more because it’s not as dark, but this Amber has a distinctive wintry taste.

Oh, so the Pale Ale is NOT a dark beer. The name certainly fooled me. I would say the Pale Ale is currently one of the least dark beers. I mean, today. 

Who I Like Tonight

Miami 27, New York Jets 12. Athletes are funny people sometimes. You saw the winless Raiders, in their primetime showcase 11 days ago, legitimately beat the Chiefs, who were playing for something.

It seems Peter has Bill Simmons Syndrome where he uses the word "legitimately" in situations where it isn't necessary. So the Raiders didn't illegitimately beat the Chiefs? It was a totally legit victory?

The Adieu Haiku
You see Belichick? Rodgers-whispering, postgame:
“See you in two months.”


You don't believe Peter that this is what Belichick said? Just ask Belichick, he will tell you.

Saturday, November 9, 2013

3 comments The Usually Reliable Bob McGinn Thinks the Packers Would Be Fine Without Aaron Rodgers Because Seneca Wallace Can Cover the Spread

I like Bob McGinn. Generally he knows his stuff, especially about the Packers. He has written an article for the "Milwaukee-Wisconsin Journal Sentinel" where he says the Packers could win without Aaron Rodgers. When he wrote this column the loss of Rodgers for a few weeks was a hypothetical and now it appears to be a reality. I agree in a way, the Packers could win a few games without Rodgers, especially against some of the teams the Packers play on the back end of their schedule. Still, I don't think the Packers could sustain winning and I don't think the Packers would be fine without Rodgers if they made the playoffs. Bob McGinn thinks the backup quarterback, Seneca Wallace, would step in and play fine because he's really good at beating the spread. Yes, he's good at beating the spread and apparently this is part of being a successful quarterback. I think this is a lesson to learn that while Seneca Wallace is a competent backup, the difference between a great quarterback and a competent backup is going to be a big difference. Thanks to Eric for emailing this article to me. I think it's interesting that McGinn wrote this column and then that night Aaron Rodgers got injured. He's definitely a jinx. I started writing this post that Monday evening and then the very next day the hypothetical Rodgers injury had become a reality.

It's a simple yet pervasive line of thinking in the event that quarterback Aaron Rodgers should suffer an injury sidelining him for most if not all of the season.

The theory goes that it makes no difference what players might be behind Rodgers. If No. 12 goes down, all hope is lost — the Green Bay Packers would be finished.

They wouldn't be finished. The Packers schedule had the Bears twice, then the Eagles, Giants, Vikings, Lions, Falcons, Cowboys and Steelers. It's not an easy schedule, but there are a few teams struggling in that list of future Packer opponents. 

We've seen Mike McCarthy, Ted Thompson, their staffs and the players overcome more injuries in the last four seasons than any National Football League team. Time and time again they've lost key players only to plug in well-prepared backups and keep on winning.

There is a huge difference in plugging in a backup offensive lineman or a backup wide receiver and plugging in the backup quarterback. A new quarterback changes the entire way a team runs its offense, especially a backup quarterback like Seneca Wallace who has a different skill set from Aaron Rodgers.

Losing Rodgers to major injury would be the nightmare of all nightmares. He makes everyone's job easier.

Yet, no organization would be better equipped to handle it than Green Bay.

I don't know if Seneca Wallace is the best backup quarterback in the NFL. That's essentially what this statement means. The Packers are best equipped to handle an injured starter, which means the Packers backup quarterback is the best backup quarterback in the NFL. I don't think the fact the Packers have handled other injuries well means the Packers could handle an injury to Rodgers well. Losing the starting quarterback is such a different problem from losing a wide receiver or a safety.

Bob McGinn is about to argue because the Packers have sustained injuries to key players before then they could do it again if Aaron Rodgers gets hurt. It's so much different when the starting quarterback gets injured though. It's not like inserting a backup safety into the starting lineup or being down to the third-string running back. A new quarterback can change the way the entire offense is run. 

What I'm doing is taking a close look at the disaster plan that the Packers have rehearsed countless times behind closed doors. Lack of preparation is inexcusable, and these people didn't play the second half of the 45th Super Bowl without eight starters and still win by being unprepared.

Which is why the Packers cut Vince Young (the only backup quarterback on the roster at the time) out of training camp and then signed Seneca Wallace on September 2. Preparation is key and Wallace has had the entire season to get ready but hasn't taken real game snaps or preseason snaps with the Packers team until Monday evening. So while I admire the Packers ability to fill an injured player's spot, I am a little bit quizzical about how prepared they are if they did lose Rodgers for the season. 

The Packers have been immune at quarterback for 21 years, but it doesn't represent the unthinkable for them. They're paid not just to meet catastrophe, but to conquer it.

Seneca Wallace is 33 years old and has a career passer rating of 81.3. He's not bad, but I really think Bob McGinn underestimates the decline in talent in going from Aaron Rodgers to Seneca Wallace. Aaron Rodgers makes the players around him better, while Seneca Wallace needs talent around him to play better. It's a totally different look to go from a quarterback who is Aaron Rodgers and a quarterback who needs to manage the game and doesn't make everyone around him better. Eddie Lacy won't find as many holes running the ball, the receivers don't get the ball where they are used to getting it, and the Packers defense would have to play slightly differently not knowing whether the offense can put up 30+ points per game. 

the guess here is that even if the Packers were to lose Rodgers early Monday night against the Chicago Bears they'd find ways to finish 11-5.

Maybe the Packers would "find a way" to win 11 games (whatever that means exactly), but I really think that McGinn is underestimating the move to Wallace from Rodgers. 

That probably would earn them one of the top three seedings in the NFC playoff field. Then Green Bay would be a tough out.

I don't think the Packers would be a tough out though. They would have a home playoff game, but the explosive Packers offense would be gone. For his career, Rodgers averages just below 9.0 yards per attempt, while Seneca Wallace averages just below 6.5 yards per attempt over his career. Even though he averages more yards per attempt, Rodgers has never had a completion percentage below 63.6% in a season where he's started a football game for the Packers. Wallace's career high completion percentage in a season where's started a football game is 65.0% and during the season with the largest sample size there is of Wallace starting games (8 games in 2008) his completion percentage was 58.3%. I'm not cherry-picking data either, I promise. Wallace is a different quarterback from Rodgers and a lot of the explosiveness of the Packers offense that makes them so tough would disappear with Seneca Wallace as the starter.

A great example of this is Wallace's performance against the Bears. Simply because the Packers offense is explosive doesn't mean Wallace will suddenly become an explosive quarterback in the Packers offense. Wallace was 11-19 for 114 yards and averaged 6.0 yards per attempt. Rodgers averaged 8.8 yards per attempt on the season. Wallace will run the Packers offense different from how Rodgers will run it and I think this will cause a lot of the Packers explosiveness to go missing.

Each Labor Day weekend, it's my assignment to rank the final 53 players not on how good they are but on their importance to the team. The perceived depth behind a player raises or lowers his ranking.

Right, and there is very little quarterback depth behind Rodgers. Wallace is it and he had not taken a snap with the Packers in any kind of game until the game against the Bears on Monday night. 

We're seven games into the season and already two of the top three on that list, four of the top six and six of the top nine have missed games due to injury.

Yep, the Packers have suffered a lot of injuries. I don't know how this means Seneca Wallace could win games in place of Aaron Rodgers. 

Morgan Burnett, the No. 3 man on the list, had to sit out the first three weeks. No. 5 Eddie Lacy missed almost two full games. No. 6 Randall Cobb has been out for 2½ games and could miss at least seven more.

Again, I know Bob McGinn is smart enough to know a safety, running back, and wide receiver getting injured is completely different from a team's starting quarterback getting injured. A team's quarterback has such a large impact on the team and any change in that position will affect the offense as a whole. 

Neither Bryan Bulaga nor running back DuJuan Harris made the rankings because they were lost in August. Bulaga would have been in the top 15 and Harris was regarded as the starter by the coaches.

Wait, so Eddie Lacy was the fifth most important Green Bay player, but he wasn't even the starter? So DuJuan Harris would have been the fourth most important Green Bay player if he were healthy? I'm taking my eye off the ball here and letting Bob McGinn distract me. 

It begs the question: Is anyone in Green Bay irreplaceable?

Yes, Aaron Rodgers. He is irreplaceable. He can not be replaced with another quarterback on the Packers roster or who is a free agent with any type of expectancy the Packers offense will run in the way it did with Rodgers as the starting quarterback. 

Should what some regard as a death knell strike at quarterback, the Packers would grieve, they'd cope and my feeling is they'd come together as an even more unified force.

Because we all know the key to the Packers success with Favre and Rodgers as the starting quarterback was the team being a unified force and the team's success wasn't based on having consistently high quarterback play. Sure, Seneca Wallace is an average backup quarterback, but the team all likes each other and will "come together" to magically make Seneca Wallace turn into Aaron Rodgers or some close semblance of Rodgers. This should be made into a film. We can call it "Angels at Lambeau."

Certainly, there is potential for a team to suffer some loss of hope without its leader and greatest player.

Yes, perhaps the Packers would miss the best quarterback in the NFL. I'll have to think about it though, because it doesn't seem like a certainty. Sure, the Packers will miss Rodgers for a few weeks, but they are a unified force.

As talented and committed as Rodgers is, and as rule changes increase the value of the quarterback position, the Packers are all but guaranteed no fewer than nine or 10 victories if he lines up 16 times.

I'd see it going the other way. This team is thinking Super Bowl all the way now, and to that end one could foresee a collective groundswell of emotion and effort with the express intention of proving the doomsayers wrong.


Remember this was written BEFORE Aaron Rodgers got injured against the Bears, so maybe Bob McGinn will be correct, but only based on the competition the Packers face and not because Seneca Wallace can cover the spread or the Packers team has become a unified force. I can see the Packers winning a game or two with Seneca Wallace as the starter, especially against the lesser teams on their remaining schedule, but wanting to prove people wrong doesn't necessarily make a team play better nor will Wallace elevate the team if he had to start in the playoffs. It doesn't work that way. 

Injuries haven't touched either line. Largely because of that, this team can run the ball and stop the run, maybe the best friends a backup quarterback can have.

Part of the reason the Packers can run the ball is because defenses have to be conscious of the fact that Aaron Rodgers is standing in the backfield and is capable of hitting a receiver for a long gain if the defense pays too much attention to the Packers running the football. Obviously Aaron Rodgers isn't the only reason the Packers have run the ball well, but defenses don't respect Seneca Wallace's arm as much as they respect Aaron Rodgers' arm so they can focus on stopping the Packers from running the ball more. Rodgers' presence on the field can open up the running game for the Packers. 

On pace to score 485 points, the Packers with Rodgers have a chance to challenge their 2011 scoring record of 560.

And without Aaron Rodgers the Packers don't have a chance of challenging their 2011 scoring record of 560. I'm a little sure the Packers could win a game or two without Rodgers, but they wouldn't be nearly the team to be feared in the playoffs with Seneca Wallace as the starter. 

Which brings us to Seneca Wallace, 33, whose career was on life support before the Packers beckoned him Sept. 2 to supplant Vince Young and B.J. Coleman as Rodgers' backup.

And why was his career on life support? Because he's so good at being a backup quarterback? Because playoff contenders couldn't wait to line up to have him backup their franchise quarterback? 

Nothing against Wallace, he's a fine backup. But he's a backup and he isn't Aaron Rodgers. He will go .500 at-best as the starter, but that's not good enough for a team who was looking at 10-12 wins this season. 

"He's a great person," said left tackle David Bakhtiari. "But he's never really been in the huddle for a game so I don't know how he'd react in a game situation."

It's clear from this quote the Packers have well-prepared Wallace to start games this season and the Packers team is a unified force that has complete confidence in Wallace. 

Wallace, however, does have 1,573 regular-season snaps under his belt. Most of them came in Seattle, where coach Mike Holmgren and Thompson drafted him in the fourth round in 2003 because they wanted Matt Hasselbeck's backup to have an entirely different set of skills.

Wallace wasn't terrible during the 2008 season. He went 3-5 as the Seahawks starter while throwing for 11 touchdowns and 3 interceptions with a 87.0 rating. Not terrible, but at every stop when he could have gotten a chance to be the full-time starter his team has chosen to go in a different direction. But now I am expected to believe the Packers will be just fine with Seneca Wallace replacing Aaron Rodgers despite having been on the Packers team for only two months. Sure, I believe that. 

After backing up Hasselbeck and Trent Dilfer for two years, Wallace moved up to No. 2 in 2005 and then started 14 games for an injured Hasselbeck from 2006-'09.

He was traded to Cleveland in March 2010 for a seventh-round draft choice and given a $2 million signing bonus a year later. In two seasons for bad Browns teams, he started seven games.

Again, notice how the Seahawks traded Wallace to the Browns and then the Browns had Wallace start seven games for the Browns and then released him. He was out of football during the 2012 season and then cut by the Saints and 49ers before being signed by the Packers. He's a JAG. Just a guy. 

Wallace's 6-15 record as a starter includes an 11-10 record against the spread.

NFL games are not played against the spread and so Wallace's 6-15 record is his record as an NFL starter and what he has done against the spread is irrelevant. Unless Bob McGinn is concerned the Packers aren't going to cover the spread, Wallace's record against the spread is very, very, very, very irrelevant in regard to his ability to play the quarterback position well and sufficiently replace Aaron Rodgers as the starter. 

Thirteen of the teams that he started against finished with winning records, and 10 made the playoffs. His team was favored five times in those 21 games.

Great, so Wallace will be great news for gamblers, but bad news for Packers fans who want to see the Packers win 10-12 games this season with Wallace starting the rest of the season (which he hopefully won't have to do). 

Wallace stands 5 feet 11½ inches and weighs 206.

"If you have (height) requirements you just move on from him," Scot McCloughan, Seattle's director of college scouting in 2003, said at the time. "But he's a quarterback that's a winner. Whatever it takes."

I don't like using a quarterback's record as proof of very much, but when referring to Wallace as a "winner" I hope Scot McCloughan knows Iowa State went 14-12 with Wallace as the starting quarterback (I guess that is theoretically "winning) and I hope Bob McGinn remembers Wallace's record as an NFL starter is 6-15 when quoting someone else calling Wallace a "winner." If you are going to be annoying enough to call a quarterback a winner, that quarterback should at least won significantly more than 50% of his starts on the college and NFL level. That's just my position. 

The Seahawks saw Wallace pick up Holmgren's complicated West Coast system after diligent application, throw better deep balls than Hasselbeck and consistently slip and slide to avoid rushers and run for first downs.

Great, unfortunately he doesn't throw a better deep ball than Aaron Rodgers and Aaron Rodgers has great mobility as well. Rodgers can pretty much do whatever Seneca Wallace can do, other than play occasional wide receiver of course. 

Besides height, the reason scouts say Wallace was never handed a starting job was indecision and lack of patience in the pocket together with average overall accuracy.

Oh that's all? So Wallace would have had the starting quarterback job in Seattle if he just was more accurate, was more patient in the pocket, and could be more decisive. That's all he had to improve upon. Sounds like he is just like Aaron Rodgers. 

"He was in a very similar offense to Green Bay's for a long time," one personnel man said. "I think that's what Green Bay was counting on when they signed him."

"He knows the offense." 

This is the basest, most elementary reason given for signing a quarterback. Sure, he isn't talented, but at least he doesn't have to work hard to know what plays the coaches want run. It's kept Derek Anderson and various other quarterbacks employed past their expiration date, so what could be wrong with this reasoning? 

Last week, two scouts for AFC teams were asked to judge Wallace against the 31 other No. 2 quarterbacks.

The first preferred Wallace to 19 backups, took five over him and rated seven as a tossup. The second favored Wallace over 15 and the other 16 over him.

So Wallace is about an average backup quarterback. The Packers are going from the best quarterback in the NFL (fine, maybe the second or third best) to the 45th best quarterback in the NFL. It's not hard to see why McGinn's optimism for the Packers if Rodgers is out more than a few weeks is a bit questionable to me. Yes, the Packers can win games without Rodgers, but they can't simply slide Wallace into the starting spot and expect a slight fall-off like could be expected when Morgan Burnett gets injured or when Eddie Lacy misses a few games. The Packers could win a few games, but they won't nearly be the playoff-caliber team they were with Rodgers. The comparisons being made by McGinn to the Packers absorbing injuries at other positions is irrelevant when it comes to an injury at the quarterback position. Again, quarterback is such a different beast when it comes to bringing in a backup.

"His arm isn't bad," the second scout said. "What hinders him is he's not the tallest guy. But he can throw on the run and get out of trouble. I'd take him as a backup."

And yet, Wallace was out there for the taking during the 2012 season and this scout's team didn't take him as a backup. Weird how that works isn't it? 

"As a backup you need to feel you can go in and lead the team at any time the same way that 12 would lead the team," said Wallace. "Would it be pretty? No, we knew it wouldn't be pretty. There's going to be some timing issues and things like that.

(Sighs) 

"But I know...guaranteed, 100%...as weeks went on and I had to play back-to-back games, it'd be a lot better."

Does it sound like the disaster plan for Rodgers getting injured has been rehearsed countless times behind closed doors as Bob McGinn claims? It sounds to me like the Packers know it will be rough, but they are hoping if Rodgers misses more than a few weeks that Wallace could win a few games after he gets a few games under his belt. Basically, they are hoping the hypothetical (and now real) injury to Rodgers doesn't cause him to miss more than a few games. Bob McGinn knows the Packers organization better than I do (obviously), but it seems the disaster plan isn't as rehearsed as he states it is and Wallace isn't as confident in his own abilities as McGinn seems to be. 

The Packers passed on Matt Flynn to keep preparing Wallace. After examining his résumé and listening to him review his career, I can see why.

Because Matt Flynn isn't a very good quarterback? I think the fact the Packers chose to sign a quarterback who wasn't on an NFL roster last year says more about Matt Flynn then it does Seneca Wallace. 

If Aaron Rodgers weren't available, the Packers possess the coaching, the personnel, the chemistry and the backup quarterback to win.

"To win" is a pretty vague statement. If the Packers do win it's not because of Seneca Wallace's ability to win games against the spread. As was seen Monday night, Seneca Wallace was correct that there were timing issues and it wasn't pretty when he had to run the offense. I simply can't be as confident about the Packers ability to win games without Rodgers because Wallace hasn't shown he can stretch the field with his arm the way Rodgers has shown he can do. 

Bob McGinn is much more confident than I am in Seneca Wallace's ability and I don't think the fact he is 11-10 against the spread in his career as a starter means very much. The Packers have the Eagles, Giants and Vikings over the next three weeks so they could go 2-1 over that stretch and Bob McGinn will feel like he is correct. I'm not so sure. If the Packers did have to play the rest of the season without Rodgers I don't know if I see them as a Top-3 seed and I certainly don't think they would be feared. The Packers can plan all they want, but losing Aaron Rodgers is different from losing any of the other currently injured Packers players.

Thursday, September 13, 2012

12 comments Gregg Easterbrook Thinks the Replacement Officials Were Really Good, Outside of All the Calls They Missed

After last week's annual haiku debacle (I say it was a debacle because I don't like haikus and it was Gregg writing these haikus) Gregg Easterbrook made some predictions for the upcoming NFL season. He also followed up with Pulaski Academy and chronicled their attempt to not punt at all during the season, instead going for it on fourth down. What Gregg failed to mention is this strategy didn't work very well during a game when Pulaski Academy went up against a school which had equal skill to Pulaski. Granted, that doesn't mean this strategy doesn't work, but it could mean if two teams are equally talented (such as in the NFL) or there is a small talent gap in the two teams, going for it on fourth down may not be a good strategy...at least that's my opinion. We get another update from Gregg his week about Pulaski and Gregg also completely ignores the fictional "Crabtree Curse" that he annoyed his readers with for a while and states the 49ers (with me-first receiver Michael Crabtree on the roster) could be the next NFL powerhouse. It's interesting how the Crabtree Curse comes and goes depending on whether the 49ers are winning games or not.

The Green Bay Packers wrapped an amazing 21-1 streak around a Super Bowl win, at times seeming close to perfection. Now they have lost two straight, both at home, and looked befuddled in the process.

As I wrote in MMQB Review this week, the Packers lost to the Giants last year in the playoffs and the 49ers this year. The 49ers made the NFC Championship Game last year and the Giants won the Super Bowl last year. It's not like the Packers were losing to bad teams or anything like that.

So are the Packers sinking slowly into the sunset -- or did they just clash with the NFL's next monster team, the San Francisco Forty Niners?

Well, obviously the 49ers are the NFL's next monster team AND the Packers are slowly sinking into the sunset. After all, one entire game has been played during the 2012 NFL season. If there was ever a time to make immediate snap judgments, now is that time.

A 15-1 record in the 2011 regular season, during which Aaron Rodgers enjoyed one of the best seasons, statistically, ever achieved by any athlete in any sport. Green Bay's 560 points in the 2011 season, 35 per game, were second most in NFL annals, trailing only the 37 points per game posted by the 2007 Patriots.

Come the new year -- poof. Green Bay lost in the playoffs at home after a bye, and just lost its opener at home.


It's almost like the year 2012 is cursed for the Packers. Gregg should introduce the "Packers 2012 Curse" and then ride it all the way out until the Packers win a game and then he can make some bullshit excuse about why the curse didn't last the whole season. This would complete his trifecta of curses which he insisted were real and then made a bullshit excuse when they were eventually proven incorrect.

There was the "Patriots Spygate Curse" which was based on the Patriots not winning a playoff game since Spygate. Gregg seemed to indicate the curse would not allow the Patriots to win a playoff game. This is probably the best known curse because Gregg blatantly ignored the Patriots had won a playoff game since Spygate broke, so he had to move the date of Spygate back to when the Patriots got punished for Spygate in order to even come close to the curse being true. He did this despite the fact this would mean the "Patriots Spygate Curse" actually began after the Patriots were punished for Spygate. Even though curses don't really make sense anyway, this makes even less sense. It's like if the "Curse of the Bambino" began after Babe Ruth retired rather than when he was traded by the Red Sox.

Then there was the "Crabtree Curse" which was based on a team of wealthy NFL players caring that Michael Crabtree held out during training camp and this means Crabtree ruined team chemistry, so the 49ers were unable to win games because of this. This is a slightly less known, and yet equally as bullshitty of a curse as the "Spygate curse" because the 49ers started winning games with Crabtree at wide receiver last year. Gregg then had to make another excuse for why this curse was real. Gregg claimed it wasn't Michael Crabtree that was the issue, even though the curse was named after him and began when Crabtree held out of training camp, but it was Mike Singletary that was the issue. So Michael Crabtree didn't start the curse by holding out, even though Gregg repeatedly claimed this, it was Mike Singletary who started the curse by coaching the team which had Michael Crabtree on it...and yet the curse got named after Crabtree.

Finally, I am proposing we have the "2012 Packers Curse" which says the Packers can't win a game in 2012. This is the curse that doesn't really make sense and wasn't necessarily needed, but the author's ego caused him to believe a third curse made sense. It will be proven false within two weeks.

One weakness that has developed is that the defense dropped from fifth in 2010 to last in 2011.

Another weakness is the Packers have lost to two really good teams. Maybe they should stop playing good teams.

When elimination was a game away in 2010, the Green Bay defense exhibited a sense of urgency. In the 2011 regular season the Green Bay defense became accustomed to playing with the lead, not needing to get stops, just forcing opponents to use clock.

I am sure this is exactly what happened in the head of the Green Bay defensive players. Gregg Easterbrook: Mind Reader

On Randy Moss' Sunday touchdown, he went in motion, was ignored by all Green Bay defenders, and simply ran up the field uncovered.

It's probably because the Packers have selfish glory boys like Sam Shields, Jarrett Bush, and Tramon Williams in the secondary. These are just the typical glory boys who weren't drafted and don't work hard. Wait, that's not the narrative Gregg wants us to believe, is it? It's those highly-paid glory boys who were drafted in the first round that Gregg wants us to believe are too selfish and lazy to play well. As usual when reality doesn't match the narrative he wants to further, Gregg neglects to mention Moss went uncovered by a secondary that contained three undrafted players. If these were first round picks that Moss blew by, you can bet Gregg would have made mention of these player's draft position.

But the core problem with the Green Bay offense seems to be that everyone is standing around watching to see what the amazing Aaron Rodgers does next.

Or it could be explained by a more logical and football-related explanation like the 49ers play really good defense. I'm sure that's not it though. The Packers problems on defense are definitely related to how the team sits around and watches Aaron Rodgers play, rather than anything the opposing team is doing defensively or offensively.

Other members of the offense need to step up, while coaches need to devise opponent-specific game plans, rather than just let Rodgers wing it and be brilliant.

Dammit. Yet again, Mike McCarthy completely forgot to game plan for the 49ers. He was so busy just telling Aaron Rodgers to drop back and throw the ball to whichever receiver running a random pass pattern appeared to be open. Yes, it does appear game planning is something the Packers should look into doing. I can't believe the Packers didn't think about doing this previous to the 49ers game.

Jim Harbaugh, or Harbaugh/West to Tuesday Morning Quarterback, is leading a charmed life. In his first gig as a head coach, he went 29-6 at the University of San Diego. Then he took over a Stanford program that had gone 14-31 in its previous four seasons and in his four seasons went 29-21, with a decent team GPA and no recruiting scandals. So far at the Squared Sevens, Harbaugh/West is 15-4.

Yes, Harbaugh is leading a charmed life. His record at these three stops can't be explained by the idea he is a good head coach.

Everyone in the NFL plays tough; the Niners under Harbaugh/West play with swagger. They offer power running, deep-strike passing,

As seen by the deep-strike passing which led to Alex Smith's 3144 passing yards last year (good for 19th in the NFL), his season-long pass of 56 yards (good for 34th in the NFL among quarterbacks), and his yards per attempt of 7.07 yards (which was good for 17th in the NFL).

That deep-strike passing game is not a hallmark of the 49ers under Alex Smith. By the way, Smith's longest pass in the Green Bay game was 29 yards.

If you asked NFL coaches which of the league's teams they would least like to face in 2012, all would say, "The San Francisco Forty Niners."

Well this is just some made-up bullshit, no chaser. I don't know who this "all" person is, but I am guessing quite a few NFL coaches would also say "New England Patriots" or probably even "Green Bay Packers" or "Baltimore Ravens." Gregg is essentially just making this up.

Pitts and Martz owe viewers an apology.

Yes, I thought their analysis during the Carolina-Tampa Bay game was pretty terrible too. Mike Martz kept calling players by the wrong name and stated Vincent Jackson played for Carolina. So yes, I would appreciate an apology.

This was not getting the down-and-distance wrong or mispronouncing a player's name, this was encouraging young players to imitate an extremely dangerous example.

Don't be confused about them messing up the basics. They did mispronounce some player's names and got quite a few things wrong during the game.

After the game, Bucs coach Greg Schiano singled out Barron for praise. Rutgers player Eric LeGrand was paralyzed making an unsafe head-down tackle for Rutgers in 2010, when Schiano was coach. Schiano has observed for himself the terrible harm that can occur when football players don't "see what you hit." Yet he praises a player who made a violent helmet-to-helmet, head-down hit.

Gregg rarely does his reader the favor of citing the article or quote that he is referring to. Here again, he doesn't provide the quote that shows Schiano singled out Barron for praise. I'm not sure it even exists and what quotes I could find were of Schiano praising how Barron played, not anything to do with Barron praising how hard Barron can hit.

I found Schiano said,

“Mark Barron was really good, obviously..."

I'd love to see these other quotes which Gregg is referring to. Sadly, I know we won't ever see these quotes just like we won't ever find out exactly why Gregg called Julio Jones "a diva." It seems Gregg is allowed to continue not citing references for claims he makes.

In college football news, how did mega-underdog Louisiana-Monroe stage its upset at No. 8 Arkansas? By not punting! Reader Stephen Parker of Baton Rouge, La., notes Louisiana-Monroe went for it seven times on fourth down, converting six. The Warhawks converted a fourth-and-11 and converted fourth-and-10 twice.

Well, there we go. This the final and only piece of evidence we need to show not punting would work in college football and the NFL. I wonder if Arkansas had not punted, would they have won the game?

Sometimes when head coaches go for it early in a game and fail, they won't go for it later, reasoning, "We failed last time." That's like reasoning, "This time the coin came up heads, next time is sure to be tails." What happened last time is irrelevant to what happens this time!

Not necessarily. If a team goes for it on fourth-and-1 twice in a row and fail both times, this isn't irrelevant when it comes time to convert another fourth-and-1. It's very relevant actually.

The University of Arkansas is the prestige campus of the same state as Pulaski Academy, where coach Kevin Kelley has perfected the art of not punting.

The art of not punting has been perfected by Kelley, unless you want to count the fact Kelley's team only converted twice in seven tries last week and only converted twice in seven tries this past week. But other than going 4-14 on fourth down tries, the art of not punting has been perfected by Pulaski.

Flags often came in late and there were debatable calls -- but when aren't there debatable calls? Overall the replacement zebras, including first-ever female official Shannon Eastin, did OK.

Apparently "OK" is the best standard we can hope for from NFL officiating. That's not very comforting.

The Packers probably should have been called for an illegal block in the back during their punt return touchdown, but the fact that sports radio was debating whether it should have been flagged shows the situation was a judgment call, not a rules-knowledge matter.

So because sports radio was debating this it was a judgment call? Sports radio partially consists of uninformed idiots calling in with incredibly stupid points of view. The knowledge base of some of the callers isn't very large, so I wouldn't use "sports radio" as the key decision-maker on whether the officials made the correct call or not. If sports radio was the decision-maker on anything then every single NFL coach would be fired at some point during the season and 50% of the players in the NFL would have been traded or released by Week 8 of the season. So the fact Gregg is citing sports radio as his source this was a judgment call tells me this was a rules-knowledge matter.

Week 1 was hardly the best day in zebra history, but those highly paid, relentlessly self-praising NFLRA members have done worse. If I were them, I would call 345 Park Avenue today and accept the league's offer. Once the replacement officials have a couple more weeks under their belts, why bring the previous guys back?

Because there is no guarantee the replacement officials will continue performing at a high level, they currently lack the necessary experience to officiate an NFL game, and "OK" really isn't a standard I want NFL refs held to?

Who would have thought that in a Steelers-Peyton collision, the Steelers would be the pass-wacky ones?

Considering the Steelers don't have a great offensive line, were using their backup running backs, and their receivers are Antonio Brown, Emmanuel Sanders, Mike Wallace, and Heath Miller, and the Broncos are coached by John Fox...well I personally thought the Steelers would be the pass-wacky ones.

Reader Dan Howen of La Habra, Calif., lauds Denver guard Zane Beadles, "who was 20 yards downfield blocking on Demaryius Thomas's long touchdown catch-and-run," though he was among many blockers Sunday to get away with holding.

But the officiating was still "OK," right? Even though many blockers got away with holding on Sunday?

The Steelers snuck in one sweet play, a rare tight end stop-and-go for a touchdown. Broncos mike linebacker Joe Mays was so surprised, he fell down.

Or the play worked because Joe Mays fell down. Chicken or the egg? Which one is it?

Pittsburgh closed its 2011 season by losing at Denver and opened its 2012 season by losing at Denver.

Does this mean the Steelers are like the Packers in that they are getting ready to go into a season-long swoon? If Gregg was being consistent, then he would perhaps treat the Packers and the Steelers the same and mention the Steelers probably are on a downward trend, except he doesn't mention this. After all, both teams lost their last game of the 2011 season and the first game of the 2012 season on the same field.

When big-college programs run up the score on cupcake opponents that stand no chance, don't assume pollster "style points" the sole motive. Boosters aren't in the mood to donate if their teams don't exceed the spread.

Because boosters will donate money to a school solely based on how often that team covered the spread? I've never heard of this occurring, but of course I am also not as smart as Gregg Easterbrook. A citation of this occurring would be really helpful, but I know I won't get evidence what Gregg is stating is the truth.

Florida State originally planned to host West Virginia, but was left without an opponent when the Mountaineers switched conferences. Savannah State, so the Seminoles claimed, was the sole visitor available on short notice. The dignified thing for Florida State to do would have been not to host any game -- have the team spend the weekend building housing for Habitat for Humanity.

...or spending time with children who have cancer, helping old ladies cross the street or donating blood. But the Seminoles needed another home game in order to make money, so they decided to play Savannah State.

The NCAA does not have a mercy rule as found in most states for high school sports, but both coaches agreed on running clock. When thunder was heard in the distance again, both coaches agreed to call the game midway through the third quarter -- with Florida State ahead 55-0, equating to an 88-0 final score.

I realize Florida State played a team they could easily roll over, but at least give them some credit for calling the game midway through the third quarter. That meant they didn't cover the spread, so I wonder how many boosters were angry?

Cal and Georgia Tech both were able to find $400,000 to hire a football cupcake despite the state legislatures of California and Georgia cutting funds for public universities in recent years. Class size, education -- these are nothing compared to easy football wins!

Gregg talks about how boosters run college football programs and then wonders how California and Georgia can afford to find $400,000 to hire a cupcake team to play against them.

"Revolution" is yet another post-apocalypse premise. An unknown force has stopped all technology from functioning. Cities are overgrown with vegetation -- apparently even pruning shears have stopped working. Fighting is done with swords -- apparently the chemicals in bullets no longer work. People ride horses for transportation -- apparently bicycles ceased functioning. Yet with no electricity and the disappearance of modern products, the babe heroin's hair and makeup are perfect.

It's a television show. No one wants to see ugly people on television.

Hollywood loves post-apocalypse movies and TV serials because the costume budget is low: Just buy some old consignment clothes, and rip them.

Except the costumes for the actors in "Revolution" aren't ripped at all. Check out the link that Gregg provided (wonders never cease, do they?), do you see a lot of ripped clothing? So how is this observation relevant to this television show?

Tony Romo saw backup corner Justin "Two Garments Only" Tryon in press coverage against Miles Austin;

Not only is that not funny, but the joke doesn't make sense because "Tryon" comes after "Two Garments Only." Unless Gregg is trying to write using inverted sentences like Yoda did.

Reader Justin Pickering of Fremantle, Australia, reports that on Aug. 23, he saw television advertising for the 2013 Ikea catalog.

These are the items you can buy for the year 2013. It makes business sense to release the catalog before the year begins, you know to maximize sales and all that useless stuff.

On Friday night Pulaski, coming off an exhausting road trip to perform in California, played the Lumberjacks of Warren (Ark.) High School -- another road trip, this time a mere 90 miles by bus rather than 1,700 miles by aircraft.

For the second week of the young season, most of Kelley's fourth-down tries did not succeed. Yet Pulaski dominated the contest.

It's almost like going for it on fourth down didn't have an effect on the outcome of the game. That can't be true though, could it?

Part of the psychology of rarely punting is accepting that sometimes it won't work and the opponent will get the ball back in good field position. But if you think field position is not as important as possession of the ball -- and this is the essence of Kelley's philosophy -- then you risk sending your defense out in a rough situation in exchange for retaining possession of the ball.

And when two teams are evenly matched, like often happens in NFL games, field position becomes more valuable. So while I would like to see an NFL team try to not punt on fourth down, I can't help but notice in the NFL the disparity between two teams' talent is closer, and field possession can play a big part in whether a team wins or loses.

Possession of the ball is important in the NFL, but so is making sure your opponent has to move the ball down the field as far as possible to score. That's my biggest issue with never punting, that fourth down conversions are more difficult in the NFL than in high school and teams don't want to give quarterbacks a short field to work with.

Trailing Florida 20-17 halfway through the fourth quarter, Texas A&M faced fourth-and-inches on its 31. In came the punt unit, and I do not need to tell you who won the contest. Yes, Florida also punted on fourth-and-inches, but the Gators were ahead.

When has whether a team was winning when they didn't go for it on fourth down ever mattered to Gregg? If Florida had lost this game Gregg would be saying they lost because they punted on fourth-and-inches. They happened to win the game, so Gregg claims it doesn't matter if they went for it on fourth down or not. There are plenty of times when an NFL team leading has punted on fourth-and-short and Gregg has stated that is why that team lost the game. He's never made an exception in this arbitrary rule for whether a team is leading or not. Gregg has always stated if a team punts the ball on fourth-and-short, they will lose the game because they did this.

In fact, because both Texas A&M and Florida punted on fourth-and-inches this tells me there is another reason Texas A&M lost this game that has nothing to do with going for it on fourth down.

Stretching back to last season, megabucks A&M coach Kevin Sumlin is on an 0-2 streak since he broke his word to the University of Houston. TMQ's Law of Weasel Coaches holds: When you hire a coach who's only in it for himself, you get a coach who's only in it for himself.

Or you win National Championships because of these weasel coaches as Nick Saban has shown us twice over the last three years.

The Bills have a league-worst 11-year postseason drought, and that is unlikely to change anytime soon as they allowed 48 points versus the weak offense of the Jets. Despite the NFL being a passing league, the Bills have no quarterback they drafted on their roster, just an assortment of quarterbacks other teams didn't want.

But I thought unwanted players were supposed to be great players? Doesn't Gregg have an entire column dedicated to unwanted and lowly drafted players every single year? So what is wrong with the Bills having an assortment of unwanted quarterbacks, other than the fact they aren't very good of course?

Buffalo's awful secondary does not help. The Bills allowed a 123.4-rating day by Mark Sanchez, one of the worst passers in the league.

This isn't just the fault of the Bills secondary, but also the fault of the Bills pass rush. Of course Gregg only blames the Bills secondary instead of also blaming the Bills inability to put pressure on the quarterback. I would hope someone who writes a weekly NFL column could understand it isn't simply the secondary's fault when a team gives up a lot of passing yards/points during a game.

At cornerback, Buffalo has Leodis McKelvin, 11th choice of the 2008 draft; Stephon Gilmore, 10th selection of the 2012 draft; and Eric Williams, 33rd choice of the 2011 draft. All helped Sanchez look like a Hall of Fame quarterback in his prime.

The pass rush has to be blamed as well.

There's no sign of any change -- and no sign anyone at the top of the Bills' organization cares.

You mean other than the fact they went out and spent free agent money on Mark Anderson and Mario Williams, while also drafting a defensive tackle last year and a cornerback this year in the first round attempting to improve the defense. Other than that, no one in the Bills organization cares I guess.

Stop Me Before I Blitz Again! Arizona, Denver and San Francisco all prevailed in part by blitzing like crazy on their opponents' final possessions. So it was a good weekend for the blitz. As the season progresses and offensive line cohesion improves, this will change.

Well yes, at some point a team will blitz and lose a game. Gregg doesn't let evidence that blitzing isn't a terrible idea affect his point of view. A broken clock is right twice a day and at some point a team will lose because they blitzed, which Gregg will view as empirical evidence that blitzing is bad, even in the face of evidence blitzing also helps teams win games.

Hidden Play of the Week: Hidden plays are ones that never make highlight reels, but stop or sustain drives. Cleveland leading Philadelphia 16-10 inside the two-minute warning, Michael Vick threw a pass directly into the hands of Browns rookie linebacker L.J. Fort, who dropped the ball as if it were a live ferret. On the next snap, the Eagles won the game.

As I always write, highlight reels are usually a 30-45 second snapshot of what happened in a three hour long football game. There will be quite a few important plays that don't make the highlight reels, so these plays aren't "hidden" because they don't appear in a highlight reel. The dropped pass that led to the Eagles getting another chance to win the game was not hidden at all. This was a very important dropped interception.

Next Week: TMQ drills down into television's most entertaining series that consists entirely of nonsense.

We got a week reprieve from having to hear about how television series aren't realistic enough and now it seems we will get a double dose of this nonsense next week. The point of most television series are to entertain, so if this unnamed show is television's most entertaining series then isn't that show doing it's job well?