4 comments The Long National Nightmare Has Returned

You may recall that Gregg Easterbrook was let go by ESPN, which means his TMQ had no home. I figured it would find a home, but when TMQ's new home was linked in the comments of a different post, I couldn't help but laugh. TMQ is now at "The New York Times." It's part of "The Upshot" section online at the "Times." It's interesting that Gregg has partnered with this specific newspaper because he used to run a list of hilarious (to him) retractions the "Times" had to make over the past year in his TMQ that appeared on ESPN. I've shown multiple, multiple, multiple times that Gregg contradicts himself and this move is no exception. One month he is mocking the "Times" for it's inaccuracies and the next month he's collecting a paycheck from them. Life comes at you fast. And what is even more hilarious is that in Gregg's first TMQ, there is a correction at the bottom. Yes, Gregg can no longer go in and make covert corrections to his factual inaccuracies, but they will be noted at the bottom of the page. In this TMQ it reads:

Correction: September 15, 2015
An earlier version of this article misstated that Eagles Coach Chip Kelly called running back LeSean McCoy “jingle-footed.” Kelly said in 2008 that he does not like “jingle-footed” running backs, but that was not a reference to McCoy.

Oh no, does this mean TMQ is going to have to be factually correct and Gregg can't just assert shit without any real factual backing? Of course not, but he will see what he can get away with I'm sure. One month Gregg is mocking the corrections in the "Times" and the next month he is the one having a correction to his TMQ that appears in the "Times." Life is funny sometimes, but this irony will simply be ignored by Gregg and he'll just continue to pretend his shit don't stinks as he second-guesses the decisions made by NFL coaches and players that he doesn't even understand in the first place.

Sorry I'm a week late on this TMQ, but I'm trying to catch up. This is TMQ from Week 1. I didn't even know it existed until a few days after it posted. Also, TMQ is much shorter now. It seems he was told to bloviate less. And also also, the picture that runs beside TMQ features Gregg from what looks like about 20 years ago. Couldn't they find a more modern picture? Why not just run a baby picture of Gregg beside the column?

What did Eli Manning know and when did he know it? This seems to be the question as the New York Giants — the last time you will see that name in this column —

Oh no, more cutesy nicknames for the Giants. Please stop.

face the aftermath of their botched outing at Dallas, the team’s worst epic fail since the 2010 contest in which they allowed the Eagles to score four touchdowns in the final seven minutes to overcome a seemingly bulletproof 31-10 mid-fourth-quarter advantage.

Let me guess, the Giants punted on fourth-and-one and this told the team that Tom Coughlin didn't really want to win the game?

The Giants’ faithful are rending their garments and gnashing their teeth over the team’s nutty pass attempt on third-and-goal at the Dallas one-yard line with 1 minute 43 seconds remaining and a 3-point edge on Sunday night. Had the Giants run, either they would have scored, almost certainly icing the contest, or would have kept the clock remorselessly advancing toward double-naughts.

It's not long before we get the first "almost certainly" assumption that Gregg will make in order to further his point. I've discussed this play in MMQB Review, so I won't do it again, but Gregg continuously talks about how NFL head coaches aren't aggressive enough. He thinks if NFL head coaches are more aggressive then it tells their team he is super-serious about winning the game, which motivates his team to play better. But alas, when Tom Coughlin is very aggressive and shows confidence in his team to win a game by making an aggressive play call and it fails, Gregg is all like, "Why did you do that? How stupid!"

Nothing has changed. Gregg has no beliefs and will always base his criticism on the outcome of a play and not on any certain belief that he has espoused previously. His contentions are always correct, unless they don't work in reality, in which case he pretends he never advocated for that contention and proceeds with his criticism.

But what did Eli know and when did he know it? Bill Pennington reports that Manning told tailback Rashad Jennings not to score on the snap before the fateful incompletion.

I know "what did Eli know and when did he know it?" sounds interesting and cutesy, but it's not really pertinent to this situation.

At work is what Isaac Asimov called “psychohistory.” In the 2012 Super Bowl, Eli told the Giants’ Ahmad Bradshaw not to score in a somewhat similar situation, to keep the clock moving. Bradshaw couldn’t resist, and scored anyway.

In a similar situation in the Super Bowl, Eli was right because the decision worked out for him, but in this similar case Eli was wrong, because the decision didn't work out for him. That's how it works in Gregg's world. Whatever worked was the correct decision.

Two years ago, when Peyton Manning’s Broncos were at Dallas in a somewhat similar situation, the Broncos deliberately did not score, to keep the clock moving. During family holiday dinners, the brothers may swap tales about how Peyton got this situation right and Eli got it wrong.

Then Eli and Peyton swap tales about how it's harder for Eli to hold his hand steady with the weight of two Super Bowl rings on his fingers, while Peyton only has one Super Bowl ring holding him down.

Except on Sunday night in the endgame at Dallas, a touchdown would have put the Giants ahead by 10 with less than two minutes remaining and with the Boys out of timeouts. There wasn’t any need for elaborate game theory. Just run the ball into the end zone and the Giants win.

And there is no way the Cowboys could have scored with no timeouts left, even though they did score a touchdown with no timeouts left, and then get the onside kick and tie the game with a field goal. Yes, it wasn't the best decision on the part of the Giants and Eli Manning, but the Giants chose to be aggressive. Not to mention, there is no guarantee Jennings would have scored a touchdown. It's not like he dove to the ground at the goal line and tried to prevent himself from scoring like Bradshaw did in the Super Bowl. So who knows if Jennings would have scored and the Giants tried to show faith in their offense (which always leads to victories!) and pass the ball to secure the victory. It didn't work, therefore Gregg criticizes them. If it had worked, Gregg would have written about how this aggressive play call showed faith in the offense, which led the Giants to victory.

Note the 74-word lead says the fiasco at the goal line “seems” to be the question about the Giants-Dallas contest. Maybe it’s not. Thrice in the second half, the Giants used too-conservative tactics and kicked on fourth-and-short. Just to prove it was no fluke, Jersey/A (see explanation below) also punted in Dallas territory.

So the Giants lost because they kicked on fourth-and-short, but they wouldn't have lost the game if they had just run for a touchdown and gone up 10 points? So the punting on fourth-and-short is why the Giants lost the game, unless it ends up not being the reason they lost the game. The Giants weren't aggressive enough, which cost them a victory, but then they were too aggressive, which also cost them a victory. Whatever works, that's what the Giants should have done.

Had the Giants gone for it on fourth-and-goal from the Dallas 1 with 1:37 remaining and the Cowboys out of timeouts, they either would have scored a touchdown to sign-and-seal the victory, or would have pinned the hosts on their 1. As it was, Coughlin did the “safe” thing and took the field goal, meaning a 6-point lead that Dallas could overcome with a touchdown.

Yeah, but didn't Coughlin's insistence on doing the not "safe" thing by throwing the ball on third down inspire his team to play well and let the Giants know he was serious about winning the game? Using Gregg's prior contention that coaches who go for it on fourth down inspire their team to victory, shouldn't the Giants offense have converted the third down because they knew Coughlin wasn't trying to be safe? Fortune favors the bold and it's bold to pass on third down when doing the "safe" thing and running out the clock can win the game. Gregg thinks the Giants were too "safe" on fourth down and then they weren't "safe" enough on third down. It's all very confusing.

Consistently, N.F.L. coaches make the “safe” choice and lose. Atlanta leading, 26-24, with 2:37 remaining in the “Monday Night Football” opener, the Eagles faced fourth-and-1 on the Falcons’ 26. Philadelphia’s Blur Offense had gotten hot in the second half: On their previous three possessions, the Eagles went touchdown, touchdown, touchdown. For the night, they averaged 5.9 yards gained per snap.

But again, passing on third down isn't "safe" and I don't know why Gregg doesn't address this. Well, I do. He wants to complain NFL coaches are too conservative while also criticizing an NFL coach for making a decision that wasn't safe but didn't end up working out for his team.

Instead Kelly sent out the place-kicker, who missed. “Safe” fourth-down tactics meant defeat.

But "safe" third down tactics mean victory. 

Next week, The Upshot’s 4th Down Bot returns — buzz, whir, clank — from vacation at a robot resort on the dark side of the moon. Tuesday Morning Quarterback will delve into the deep-seated psychohistorical reasons that coaches send out kickers on fourth-and-short.

Imagine how much MLB sportswriters would hate it if there was a machine that determined whether a manager's lineup was optimal or he made the correct decision during a game. Their heads would spin, followed by 100 "Baseball is played people, not robots" columns that most certainly would end up on this blog. Murray Chass and Jerry Green would be responsible for about 75 of these articles. 

Sweet Play of the Week. Thanks to “safe” tactics by the Giants, Dallas had hope when reaching the Jersey/A 11 with 13 seconds remaining.

The Cowboys set a trips (three-receiver set) left with the reliable Jason Witten as a flexed tight end. Witten “got off the line,” evading an attempted jam, then ran a simple curl to catch the winning touchdown pass. Sweet!

Yes, Witten "got off the line" which means I have no idea why "got off the line" is in italics in this situation. I don't know why I ask these types of questions anyway. 

In the Super Bowl, the Flying Elvii (see explanation below) split tall tight end Rob Gronkowski wide to the right, almost along the sideline. The Seahawks’ secondary was confused — a linebacker went over to cover Gronkowski, while no safety shaded to that side. Seeing his defense confused, why didn’t Pete Carroll call time out? Touchdown pass and emphatic spike.

This is an example of where Gregg has a total misunderstanding of how defenses work. The call by Dan Quinn may not have involved doubling Gronkowski or providing safety help over the top. Earl Thomas or Kam Chancellor can't just decide on their own that they don't give a shit what the defense call was and they are going to double whichever receiver they feel like they should be doubling on a specific play. Maybe Carroll didn't call timeout because he didn't think the defense was confused. He thought he had a linebacker on a tight end and figured that was the play call Dan Quinn made in that situation.

Gregg Easterbrook is under the impression that a defensive player can just do whatever the fuck he wants to do on a play.

(Defensive player) "Oh, Julio Jones is lined up in the slot? I'll just not play Cover-1 on this defensive play and provide help over the top to the corner."

(Another defensive player) "There's Rob Gronkowski over on the right side of the field. Sure, I'm supposed to be covering the running back out of the backfield...but I think the linebacker is going to need some help. I'll probably ignore the defensive play call and shade Gronkowski's way." 

Sweet ‘n’ Sour Play of the Week. Trailing, 31-24, with 59 seconds remaining in regulation, St. Louis had the ball on the Seattle 39. St. Louis lines up with a trips right, tight end Lance Kendricks flexed wide left, doing a Gronkowski imitation.

Generally, I'm betting that Lance Kendricks does a really crappy impression of Rob Gronkowski. You know, based on each player's production over his career. 

On the down, Seattle was in Cover 1, meaning just one safety deep — though the Seahawks knew the Rams had to reach the end zone.

The Seahawks trust their corners and the rest of the secondary to cover guys in man coverage on certain plays. So the safety often plays centerfield and when that safety is Kam Chancellor there tends to be few things that go wrong. So I don't know if Gregg thinks the Seahawks should have played Cover-2 or some other defense in this situation, but they trust their secondary enough to only have one safety deep. It's what had made the defense so good in the past that they are able to do this. 

The lone deep safety shaded toward the trips side, meaning strong safety Dion Bailey had single coverage — no help — versus Kendricks.

It's Lance fucking Kendricks. Why the hell would the Seahawks need to double him? Jesus Christ, Gregg wants a defense to double every single receiver on the field, as if the defense can trot 20 guys out there at a time. Kendricks has 132 receptions over his five year career. The only reason the Seahawks would double him is if they were trying to be ironic. Really, does Gregg not understand if Lance Kendricks gets doubled then that means other offensive players can score? Does he understand numbers and why a defense shouldn't double every single tight end that lines up on the far right or left side of the line of scrimmage? 

Yet the entire Seattle secondary looked surprised when Kendricks took off deep.

Probably because they didn't know what route he was going to run. Again, it's Lance Kendricks. He's not T.Y. Hilton or another really fast receiver who sees a safety lined up on him and immediately thinks of making a play deep. Kendricks is a tight end. It's very possible he could have run another route that didn't involve going deep. 

BOLO of the Week. All units, all units, Be on the Lookout for the Seattle defense. It disappeared in the fourth quarter of the Super Bowl and has not been seen since. All units, all units, Be on the Lookout for the Detroit Lions’ defense. Ranked second in 2014, Detroit’s defense was torched for 483 yards at San Diego, allowing a fourth-quarter third-and-19 conversion that helped the Bolts ice the contest.

I wonder if Kam Chancellor's absence had anything to do with the Seahawks defense struggling? Probably not, because that would be crazy. Also, the Lions lost much of their defensive line and one of the best defensive linemen in the game to free agency, so it's not that the defense is lost, but that the defense is struggling to replace certain players. Go ahead and send the BOLO, but there is a reasonable explanation for the struggles of the Lions and the Seahawks are still in the middle of the pack on defense without Chancellor. 

Purists may lament the situation, but to fans, roster churn matters not. Football’s Rule of 90/90 holds that 90 percent of the fans have no idea who 90 percent of the players are.

Gregg Easterbrook doesn't know who 90 percent of the players are either. I'm glad Gregg thinks he knows enough to say roster churn matters not. Ask Panthers fans when Steve Smith was released if roster churn matters. Ask Lions fans who lost Ndamukong Suh in free agency how they feel about roster churn. It's very hard to know 90% of the players in a league full of 1696 players, but I'm guessing fans care about roster churn on their own team. Of course, who I am to argue with Gregg? 

So long as a team has a couple of well-known stars, the identities of the wedge guys are irrelevant.

This shows how disconnected Gregg really is from what fans think. Any person who follows his favorite team regularly sees how other fans get excited about wedge guys and the 50th man on the roster who did something great in training camp and could he be the next great tight end for the team? If anything, fans know these wedge guys too well in training camp and put too much faith in these wedge guys to be difference makers. But whatever, Gregg. Whatever. You know more about what fans think while high up on your pedestal.

New England just won the Super Bowl. How many of its starting linemen can you name without peeking at the Web?

Four. I can name four of them. David Andrews, Tre Jackson, Sebastian Vollmer, and Nate Solder. How many can you name, Gregg? Zero? Or just the highly-paid glory boys like Julio Jones who you pretend to know something about? 

Great Moments in Football Management No. 1. On “Monday Night Football,” Julio Jones caught nine passes for 141 yards and two touchdowns — none too shabby. Netting the 2011 Cleveland-Atlanta trade and subsequent transactions, the Browns gave up Jones, one of the N.F.L.’s best players, for Johnny Manziel, one of the N.F.L.’s players.

Wait, what is this? Gregg Easterbrook says Julio Jones is one of the NFL's best players? But the Falcons didn't make the playoffs last year and that is all Jones' fault. I'll let Peter explain better than I can. From his August 2014 TMQ:

Since they took their home field for the NFC title game, the Falcons are 4-13. General manager Thomas Dimitroff gambled the club's future on the 2011 kings' ransom trade for Julio Jones, and the gamble failed. Not only did Atlanta fail to reach the Super Bowl, but Jones also has failed to justify the trade.

It's amazing how Jones has gone from being a part of a failed trade where he hasn't justified his abilities enough to one of the NFL's best players in the matter of a season. Not to mention, the Falcons had a losing record last year, but Gregg somehow fails to blame Jones for this losing record in 2015 when in 2014 the Falcons losing record proved how Jones failed to justify the picks the Falcons gave up for him. It's almost like Gregg constantly contradicts himself and talks out of his ass.

One year Jones fails to justify the trade the Falcons made to get him, the next year once the Browns have gotten rid of all the players in that trade, Jones has suddenly justified the trade and is one of the NFL's best players. This despite the fact that the Falcons didn't make the playoffs last year, so the reasoning Gregg used to bash Jones is still relevant, except now Gregg realizes how fucking stupid his assertion was and wants to pretend he never wrote anything negative about Jones.

It's not a one time thing either that Gregg bashed Jones. From 2012:

Rookie Julio Jones is playing well, but the king's ransom of draft choices Atlanta gave for him has already resulted in decline of the Falcons' power game.

Or from November 2013:  

The king's ransom in draft choices paid two years ago for Julio Jones led to talent depletion of the Atlanta roster.

You will notice in there that Gregg called Jones a "diva" for some inexplicable reason.

The Falcons might right themselves, but for now, there seems a concern that the Julio Jones trade will explode in their faces. Atlanta gave a king's ransom for Jones, not only depleting its ability to restock other positions but inserting a diva character into a locker room that previously was cohesive.

Or should I point out the TMQ dedicated to why mega-trades (like the one for Jones) don't work?  

Gregg Easterbrook is a contradicting hack and anyone who employs him should be prepared for him to mislead his audience and write things he will later contradict or try to pretend he never wrote. Facts aren't things that Gregg worries about. He passes his opinion off as fact and then tries to pretend it never happened when he contradicts his previous facts.

Great Moments in Football Management No. 2. With Robert Griffin III selling popcorn in the stands and Kirk Cousins looking befuddled on the field, consider: Netting transactions, in the last five years the Washington franchise has invested three No. 1 draft choices, two No. 2s and a No. 4 on quarterbacks, and is in panic mode at quarterback.

Yes, the Redskins traded many of these picks to the Rams for Robert Griffin III, but I don't know if I consider that investing the pick into a quarterback. And also, Gregg has taken great pains to criticize the Rams for this trade as well. It's not like the Rams did much with the picks anyway. I actually don't think the Redskins are in panic mode at quarterback. I think Gruden likes Cousins and McCoy pretty well. 

Maybe It’s Just as Well George Halas Did Not Live to See This. Trailing Green Bay by a touchdown in the fourth quarter, the Bears, playing before a raucous home crowd, reached second-and-goal on the Packers’ 2. On the day, the team rushed for 189 yards. So did Chicago punch the ball in on three tries from the 2? Incompletion, incompletion, incompletion, and I wrote “game over” in my notebook.

There was 7:42 left in the game at that point. I'm glad Gregg felt the need to write "Game Over" in his notebook, though I wonder how many times he erases "Game Over" after he's written it, because the Bears in fact did score another touchdown in the game, so it wasn't totally over after this failed fourth down conversion. 

McCoy, now running for the Bills, has walked his comments back so many times it’s no longer clear exactly what his point is, other than that he dislikes Kelly. Kelly has said he does not like tailbacks who are “jingle-footed,” whatever that means.

Chip Kelly has said this repeatedly. He has said he likes running backs who make one cut and hit the hole, then run downhill. A "jingle-footed" running back is a running back who doesn't hit the hole and then run downhill. It's really not complicated at all to figure out what Kelly means. I like how this is the comment that required a correction to TMQ. Previously, Gregg would have just changed this sentence from referring to LeSean McCoy to referring to all running backs and pretended it never happened, all while criticizing others for making mistakes in their column. Because the "New York Times" publishes corrections, Gregg can't pretend his shit don't stink while pointing out the mistakes of others. I like it. 

Super Bowl Flashback. Reaching the New England 1 in the closing seconds of the Super Bowl, all Seattle had to do was hand the ball to Marshawn Lynch and a second Lombardi Trophy was likely.

Yes, it was "likely" because that's the conclusion Gregg wants to reach in order to prove his conclusion. Sure, maybe Lynch would have scored, but is that "likely" Lynch would have scored? Who knows? It's dangerous to just make assumptions like this, but as long as it proves the point Gregg wants to prove he doesn't care.

The folly of Seattle’s final offensive call prevented the sports world from noticing something else: The Seahawks committed pass interference on the play.

Hang with Gregg on this. He says the final offensive call prevented the sports world from noticing the pass interference on the play. So the way Gregg is working this contention is that he noticed pass interference that the rest of the sports world didn't notice. Others were unaware of the pass interference...well, until Gregg decides that's not true. No one noticed, except he needs people to notice the pass interference in the very next sentence. 

Had Seattle scored on the play, millions today would believe that an officiating blunder awarded the wrong team the Lombardi Trophy. Millions would think the 2014 N.F.L. season built up to a conclusion as badly botched by zebras as the ending of the 2012 Fail Mary game,

Millions would believe that an officiating blunder awarded the wrong team the Lombardi Trophy, because they saw the pass interference on the play that Gregg just claimed the sports world didn't see. I guess Gregg is assuming everyone is too stupid to catch those things that he catches, like there was offensive pass interference on the play, because we saw the ball get intercepted. So yes, the millions would wonder about the officiating blunder that Gregg claims the sports world didn't notice. 

Human nature says we pay more attention to what happens than to what doesn’t happen. What did not happen was that the 2014 N.F.L. season — which began with the extreme unpleasantness of the Ray Rice videotape, then proceeded to another Patriots cheating accusation — did not end with Seattle receiving a tainted win because offensive pass interference was not called.

The pass interference no one noticed would taint everything. And also, I'm not sure that would have been pass interference. The Patriots run plays like that themselves and aren't often called for pass interference. Gregg has now created a whole new controversy that doesn't exist and may have never existed. I wonder how many times he'll mention this controversy that never was over this upcoming football season, in between writing a TMQ on concussions, blur offenses and how offenses are far ahead of defenses early in the season? 

Scandal Nickname Note. Aren’t you weary of “____”-Gate? Yours truly contends the ball-inflation hullabaloo should be called PSIcheated.

I'm weary of your nicknames for NFL teams. Hopefully the "Times" will keep TMQ at an abbreviated length and possibly I can look forward to a correction every week in TMQ. God knows if the editors are doing their job, the list Gregg used to make of "Times" corrections will look small compared the list of corrections made on a weekly basis to TMQ.

7 comments MMQB Review: Peter King May Have Just Confessed He Wants to Sleep with Marcus Mariota Edition

Peter King talked about how perfect Aaron Rodgers was in last week's MMQB, as well as made his Super Bowl pick. Peter also had a travel note complimentary of Acela, which we all know will probably turn into a complaint about Acela in the coming weeks. This week Peter talks about the blessed-relief first week of NFL games, Marcus Mariotia's outstanding start to his NFL career, creeps me out by inadvertently confessing he's sexually attracted to Mariota (the creepy part being that Peter is significantly older than Mariota), and it turns out the PAT Revolution didn't work out how Peter thought it might. If you recall, Peter was a big proponent of moving the extra point back in order to give NFL teams more incentive to go for the two point conversion (that's the partial reason). After only one week, it didn't work that way.

Peter has also stopped doing the Fine Fifteen in MMQB, which is good news. It is pointless to rank NFL teams early in the season anyway. I'm lying, he's just not doing the Fine Fifteen until all of this week's games are played, which makes ranking all the NFL teams after one week seem to make so much more sense.

Now that was quite a way to end the first Sunday of a blessed-relief NFL Week 1.

No more talking about the Patriots deflating footballs! Ever! It's ov---

(Blessed relief because we’re not talking much about inflation of footballs … just 359 words here on the Brady vs. Goodell mess this morning.)

Oh. So Peter King thinks not talking about Brady v. Goodell is relief, but then he goes ahead and writes 359 words on the topic anyway. Hey, Peter can't control what he writes in this column (which is why he doesn't use the word "Redskins," because he can't control his own words), so don't blame him!

Can I start the 19th season of MMQB by telling you an observation I had Sunday evening about the incredible closeness of this game? Of these games? 

It's a game of precociousness?

The games are so close, and they’re sometimes decided by the craziest of breaks, and human foibles, and mind-boggling decisions.

That’s a big reason, collectively, why America keeps coming back for more, no matter how fist-shaking angry it gets at the commissioner or the owners or players who mess up.

Thanks for telling America why we come back. Little did we know that we enjoyed watching the games. I thought I watched the NFL just so I would know what Peter was talking about when I read MMQB every week.

We start this morning with the first-ever opening-week duel of rookie quarterbacks drafted with the first two overall picks. Jameis Winston (Tampa Bay) versus Marcus Mariota (Tennessee) kind of snuck up on us, as it was eclipsed by the never-ending drama on Ted Wells’ field of play.

“I thought it deserved a little more attention,” Tennessee coach Ken Whisenhunt said from Tampa on Sunday night. “When we first saw the schedule—Week 1, 4:25 game—it seemed like they planned this because of the spectacle of it. And because we had the late game, I’m watching some of the pre-game shows this morning. They didn’t talk about it very much. I didn’t get that. This was a pretty big deal.”

The same head coach who wanted his rookie quarterback to throw an interception in order to get it over with and slow down the hype train wanted there to be more hype surrounding this rookie quarterback's first NFL start? Got it.

You could hear it in Whisenhunt’s voice, and see it on his face. It’s the kind of thing you’ve heard from Bill Parcells a few dozen times if you’ve been paying attention.

Bill Parcells. The greatest coach in the history of the NFL.*

*Only when he had one of the greatest head coaches in the NFL running his defense or on his staff as an assistant head coach. Without Bill Belichick as his defensive coordinator or assistant head coach, Parcells has a career record of 77-76. Probably means nothing...

Let’s not put this guy in Canton yet. Or, So, you’re fitting him for his gold jacket already? That was Whisenhunt.

It's very Parcells-like to not canonize a quarterback after one start. Other NFL head coaches would be raving about how Mariota will never throw an interception and will probably have a perfect passer rating over his entire career. Not Bill Parcells and Ken Whisenhunt though. They refuse to get ahead of themselves after Mariota makes one career start.

“You may not hear it in my voice,” he said, “but I’m really, really excited to have this kid.”

Finding a franchise quarterback = Keeping a head coaching job. It's basic math. 

Next play: Harry Douglas burst from the slot past a good corner, ex-Titan Alterraun Verner, and caught a four-yard touchdown pass from Mariota. Easy stuff. At least it looked easy. Three minutes later, near the end of the half, after Winston's second interception of the half, Mariota flipped a quick curl to Walker for the final touchdown from a yard out.

I will say this about Jameis Winston. He's known for throwing interceptions (that's the perception at least) and giving him a shitty offensive line isn't going to help him get comfortable and throw fewer interceptions. Winston is a pocket passer and wasn't able to feel comfortable throwing the ball in the pocket. Until the Buccaneers do that for him, he can't succeed.

It’s totally unfair to draw conclusions based on four quarters

Everyone repeat after me...now Peter will proceed to draw some conclusions.

but you can say this about the two players. Mariota moved between shotgun and under-center snaps freely. He was comfortable throwing fast and throwing with time. He was extremely accurate. He looked so comfortable, as though this was the first game of his sixth season, not his first.

I'm not going to be a Winston apologist, but look at the offensive line the Titans have put around Mariota. They have worked hard to put a quality offensive line out there, even to the point they had the luxury of trading away a disappointing Andy Levitre rather than keep him on the bench for depth.

Winston was pressured more than Mariota, and he didn’t always respond to it well, going 16 of 33 with two touchdowns and two interceptions.

A rookie quarterback making his first-ever career NFL start didn't respond well to pressure? I can't believe this. Find me quarterbacks who respond well to pressure and these are among the best quarterbacks in the game, not quarterbacks making their first-ever NFL start. Again, Peter doesn't want to draw conclusions...

Rex Ryan coached six years in New Jersey, and so he heard the cacophonous noise around the Meadowlands on occasion. But a couple of things he hadn’t seen. One: Fans standing for most of three hours, which they did Sunday, so as not to miss anything in a 27-14 Bills’ victory over the favored Colts. Two: The RV parking lot adjacent to Ralph Wilson Stadium full late Saturday morning.

It's almost like Bills fans crave a winning team or something. I'll be impressed when that RV parking lot is full late Saturday morning when it's late November and December when it is cold as hell outside.

This was a revelation game for Buffalo. In a game between Tyrod Taylor and Andrew Luck, who do you think would have the 63.6 passer rating and who the 123.8 rating?

I don't know, is Tyrod Taylor on the Patriots team now? If so, I would expect the 63.6 rating to be what Luck has put up. 

“I think we made a statement today,” Taylor said.

This one: We’re pretty good now, and we might get better, and we just might petition the league to play all 16 games at home.

“We’re gonna be tough to beat at home, I’m telling you,” Ryan said.

A Rex Ryan-coached team with an actual quarterback is a little bit terrifying. Really, the only thing that could bring the Bills down is if Rex hired his brother to be his defensive coordinator.

Judging by the first week of the season, they’d better be good at home—and on the road. Standings of the AFC East this morning:

Buffalo: 1-0
Miami: 1-0
New England: 1-0
New York Jets: 1-0

Great! Standings! They mean so much this time of year. Nobody in the AFC East has been defeated at this point in the season. Could this be the first time in league history an entire division manages to 16-0? Possibly. Peter doesn't want to jump to any conclusions, but he thinks at least two of these teams will go undefeated.

The defense is the real thing. If the offense can hold up its end—and really, you can say the same thing about any of the three AFC East challengers to New England—Buffalo will be in it till the end. That’s a big if, of course. It will depend on the maturation of Taylor.

So whether the Bills quarterback plays well or not will determine how well the team does this year? Very interesting point of view, if not controversial.

Some old friends are coming to town: Bill Belichick. Tom Brady. The schedule-maker came up with an unlikely AFC Game of the Week in Week 2.

AFC Game of the Week? No. AFC Game of the Century. Peter doesn't want to jump to conclusions, but this is probably the biggest Week 2 game in the history of the NFL. It's amazing the NFL schedule-makers came up with having the Jets and Bills play each other so early in the season. It's almost like they KNEW Rex Ryan was the head coach of the Bills or something and this game would be interesting to watch. Plus, the schedule-makers somehow remembered they had to schedule two Patriots-Bills games since the teams both play in the AFC East. Peter doesn't want to jump to conclusions, but this game could, and COULD being the key word, mess up the perfect record the AFC East teams have currently. 

“Wait till next week,” Ryan said, chuckling over the phone. “Holy s---. I cannot wait.”

He said "shit." What a rebel.

You might have gone to bed by the time the Giants and Cowboys reached the final two minutes Sunday night in Texas, so let’s recap: Giants up 23-20, third-and-goal from the Dallas 1-yard line, 1:43 left. No timeouts left for Dallas.

The play here is to hand the ball off, hope the back scores, but if not, make sure the back doesn’t run out of bounds to stop the clock. If the back doesn’t score, let the clock run down to, say, one minute, and on fourth down do the same thing again. If he’s stopped, the Cowboys would get the ball at their one-yard line with about 55 seconds left.

The Cowboys would then be able to tie the game with a field goal, but also have to go 60 yards to even get close to field goal range. The Giants could also go the aggressive route with the quarterback they just handed a lot of guaranteed money to and hope he can seal the win for them with a touchdown. It's aggressive to not choose to run the ball, that's for sure.

The one thing that seems totally illogical is what the Giants did. Eli Manning rolled out and threw to the back of the end zone, to no one. The Giants kicked a field goal to go up 26-20. And the Cowboys got the ball after the kickoff at their 28-yard line with 1:29 left.

It wasn't a smart decision, that's for sure. It was an aggressive, "go for the throat" decision that trusted the same defense the Giants hoped wouldn't let the Cowboys go 60+ yards to tie the game with 55 seconds left would prevent the Cowboys from going 72 yards to win the game with 1:29 left.

With Manning manning up, and Coughlin doing the same, we at least know the Giants have standup guys. What we don’t know is why they would do something like this. Were they so confident in a specific play they had called? Did they think they’d catch the Cowboys loading up for the run and sneak in a quick touchdown pass?

Yes, they were confident in the play they had called, and yes, they thought they could catch the Cowboys loading up on the run. It wasn't the safest play and it wasn't the "smart" play. The Giants look like geniuses if it ends up working out though.

Hand it to Tony Romo (11 of 12 for 147 yards and two touchdown passes in the last eight minutes of the game) for driving 76 and 72 yards in the last two series for the win. But this one’s on the Giants. If Coughlin and Manning each want half the blame, it’s theirs.

While admitting the Giants are definitely to blame, if Romo and the Cowboys can go 72 yards with 1:29 left to win the game, couldn't they conceivably have gone 60+ yards with 55 seconds to go (if the Giants went for it on fourth down and then forced the Cowboys to be pinned on their own 1-yard line) or go 72 yards with 55 seconds left to win the game outright (if the Giants kick the field goal and then kickoff)? Again, the smart play isn't what the Giants chose to do, but Romo went 72 yards with no timeouts to win the game, so the idea of going 60+ yards to tie the game isn't incredibly far-fetched. Blame the Giants, but they were being aggressive and it didn't work out.

The MMQB’s Robert Klemko was in St. Louis Sunday and filed this about the backup for holdout strong safety Kam Chancellor…

Nothing noteworthy here, except the unnecessary use of italics.

Dejected, Bailey sat upright in his locker, located between Richard Sherman’s and Earl Thomas’s, in the visitor’s dressing room at the Edwards Jones Dome. He draped several towels over his head and closed his eyes. He felt as though he’d not only lost the game, but tarnished his family name.

I read this aloud with emphasis on the part in italics. It sounds silly to me when read aloud. Am I the only one who is bothered by this unnecessary use of italics to show emphasis when read aloud? I probably am, but it sounds ridiculous when sounded out and not written.

The PAT revolution? Not quite, but wait.

Moving the PAT didn't immediately change the NFL for the better and coaches who have always been risk-averse continued to be risk-averse even when given a slightly greater incentive to go for a two-point conversion? Certainly you must be kidding!

Imagine this scenario, painted for me by Indianapolis coach Chuck Pagano:

The Colts score a touchdown to go up nine points with 45 seconds left in the game. Now Pagano has to decide whether to go for the point-after touchdown, basically a 33-yard field goal, or to go for two, from the 2-yard line.

Or, as Pagano suggested, neither.

“Because the defense can score on the PAT or two-point conversion now, why would I go for either one?” Pagano told me. “Why wouldn’t I just take a knee and not go for anything?”

Why would a coach do this, besides the fact they are abnormally risk-averse people so manipulating them into going against their instincts isn't going to work unless it is taken to the extreme? Why would a coach take a knee and not go for anything? Because it guarantees a win, which is why most NFL head coaches will always go for the longer extra point over the two-point conversion.

So imagine a team, late in a game, up by four or nine, lining up to go for two and then the quarterback simply takes a knee to kill the play. I’m not saying it positively will happen. But I am saying it makes zero sense for a team up four or nine in the last minute or so to attempt either the one or two-point conversion.

You miss that extra point try now, don't you Peter? I was not against the extra point moving back, but I've never thought it would cause head coaches to go for two more often and do much more than make the extra point more difficult. That's fine. The extra point can be made more difficult, but there is always a change in strategy that isn't thought of when rules change and the fact a team may not even try an extra point or two-point conversion seems to be that change in strategy.

There’s nothing to gain. That’s Pagano’s opinion. Chip Kelly’s too. “We felt that way at Oregon, because the defense could score points,” the Eagles’ coach said.

As the NFL tries to force NFL head coaches to be more aggressive, they find a way to not be more aggressive. It's almost like the nature of being an NFL head coach will find it's way to being conservative no matter how many rules are adjusted to change this behavior. 

“I think you’ll see a change in the mentality, with more thought being put into the fact that the defense can return it now, and what impact that has,” Mike Pettine of the Browns said. “We already have a chart made.”

A chart! The Browns have a chart ready to go for when they are up four or nine points and need to make a decision on whether to kick the extra point, go for two or kneel the ball down. I have a feeling this chart may stay in near-mint condition for another season at least.

On our training camp trip, The MMQB asked head coaches if they planned to treat the PAT any differently this year with the line of scrimmage moved from the 2 to the 15-yard line—and with defenses now being able to score either one or two points on a failed conversion try returned to the far end zone. We got no sense that there would be a mass change from the one to two-point tries,

Roger Goodell should consider suspending head coaches who don't go for the two-point conversion enough, or perhaps, he should start docking draft picks from teams who don't go for the two-point conversion at a certain percentage after a touchdown. I may have just given Goodell an idea.

But most coaches were like Kelly. “The percentage in kicking from the 2 versus kicking from the 15, I think, goes from about 99.6 percent to 95.5 percent,” said Kelly, referring to the percentage of extra-point success in 2014, versus the percentage of field goals made from the low 30-yard-yard area. “The league wanted to encourage coaches to think about going for two, and I said you needed to change where you went from two from. [Kelly proposed moving the two-point line of scrimmage from the 2 to the 1-yard line.] I said, ‘It’s been on the 2-yard line and people haven’t gone for two, so why moving it back and changing four percentage points do you think that’s going to make a coach go for two?’

The NFL tried to incentivize teams to go for a two-point conversion by moving the extra point back to an area where kickers can still make a very high percentage of kicks. Maybe if they want teams to go for a two-point conversion more often they should incentivize teams in a positive manner to go for the two-point conversion. Moving up the two-point conversion to the 1-yard line would do that. A head coach will see that a kicker will maybe miss 3-4 extra points in a season, thereby leaving four points off the scoreboard, while only two missed two-point conversions (which are converted at a much lower rate than an extra point) will leave four points off the scoreboard on the season. If you just assume NFL head coaches will be conservative and take the points, you see why moving the extra point back won't necessarily result in an increased amount of two-point conversion tries. It's not shocking to me the NFL failed to see this when the extra point rule was changed.

But there will be more two-point tries, particularly if the defense jumps offside on the one-point tries.

Which, as I showed a few months ago, happened about six times or so last season. Defenses jump offside about at the same percentage that kickers will miss an extra point. And yet, Peter keeps relying on this "jump offside" scenario as something that will happen quite often when in reality this is not true.

That means teams will have a choice whether to take a five-yard penalty and put the PAT line of scrimmage at the 10-yard line, or go half the distance, from the 2 to the 1, and try a one-yard two-point play.

I'm betting when this happens 6-7 times this season (maybe less for offensive false starts on extra points), the majority of head coaches are going to choose to kick the extra point. 

The opposite of that scenario actually played out in Week 1. The Chargers scored a touchdown in the fourth quarter to go up five points on the Lions, 26-21. San Diego lined up to go for two but committed a false start and had to move back five yards. Coach Mike McCoy opted to try the 38-yard PAT (rather than a 7-yard two-point try) and Josh Lambo's kick was no good. It's a good example of the little strategic decisions that the longer PAT now forces coaches to make.

It's also a great example of how this doesn't happen often and there is no strategic decision involved here. A two-point conversion from the 7-yard line or a 38-yard PAT? The PAT will win 9 times out of 10. I do like how Peter bashes the Giants for being aggressive, but he expects a two-point conversion try from the 7-yard line to be "a strategic decision." Bash teams for being aggressive and not just taking points, but then expect them to be aggressive and not take the points when it supports his point of view.

SPECIAL TEAMS PLAYERS OF THE WEEK

Tavon Austin, wide receiver/returner/running back, St. Louis. This was the kind of game the Rams expected when they drafted him in 2013. His 16-yard touchdown run as a lone back in the second quarter flummoxed the Seahawks, and his 75-yard punt return in the third quarter gave the Rams the biggest lead (11 points) that either team had all day.

It was a great punt return, but don't forget the Rams passed over Eric Reid, Kyle Long, Tyler Eifert, D.J. Fluker, Sheldon Richardson, Star Lotulelei, Travis Frederick, and Le'Veon Bell (among others) to draft Austin at #8 overall. A punt return touchdown isn't going to justify his draft position any time soon.

Could this be the year Austin breaks out, at long last?

Sure, let's look at Austin's other numbers from the game where Peter wonders if he will break out...two receptions on five targets and -2 receiving yards, plus four rushes for 17 yards (and a long of 16) and a touchdown. As long as Austin is used correctly (i.e. not as a receiver it seems) then he should have a good year. A breakout year? Probably not considering he was the #8 overall selection. But hey, the Los Angeles Rams are a team on the rise, so who knows what could happen?

Tyler Lockett, wide receiver/returner, Seattle. He is becoming everything the Seahawks hoped Percy Harvin would be—a dangerous returner and effective change-of-pace receiver. On his first career punt return Sunday at St. Louis, he weaved 57 yards through the Rams’ coverage team—untouched, it appeared. He had 119 returns yards and 34 receiving yards in his first NFL game.

Lockett had a punt return touchdown and receiving yards that amount to 5% of Austin's career total in the same game. One is a rookie 3rd round pick, while the other plays for a team Peter has close ties to and is a 3rd year #8 overall pick. I probably shouldn't compare them too much, but it's natural considering Peter named them both Special Teams Players of the Week.

Two positions, linebacker and wide receiver, have had their salary standings rewritten in the past two months.

In terms of average salary, five of the top six linebackers have signed mega-deals since mid-July. The final man came in Thursday, with Carolina’s Luke Kuechly ($12.4 million per year) becoming the highest-paid inside/middle backer of all time. (Justin Houston and Clay Matthews, outside guys, are the only linebackers higher than Kuechly on the list).

These are the types of things that happen when there are great, young linebackers in the NFL and their teams want to pay to keep them on the team. 

And it’s the same number at wide receiver, five of the top six, that have signed since mid-July. A.J. Green of the Bengals averages out as the second-highest wideout deal in history (to Calvin Johnson), at $15 million per year.

The fear of injury, and fear of the franchise tag, are such great motivators. In baseball, with no franchise tag and significantly less fear of injury, stars go to market all the time. Stars rarely play the free market in the NFL.

It also helps that there is no salary cap in baseball, so the free market is truly free. The Bengals can offer A.J. Green a contract comparable to the other great players at his position and it's easy for him to accept since he knows he's not getting a 10 year $250 million contract on the free agent market. Non-guaranteed deals and the salary cap also play a big role in NFL teams being able to keep the players they draft. It's almost like there is a plan in there somewhere. 

Entering tonight’s Philadelphia-Atlanta season opener, the two most efficient running teams in the NFL since 2013 are Seattle and Philadelphia.

Seattle wouldn’t be a surprise, with the pounding Marshawn Lynch and dual-threat quarterback Russell Wilson. But pass-happy Philly? Maybe the Eagles aren’t as pass-happy as we all think.

Stop writing "we" don't think the Eagles are a run-happy team. This has been shown and described many times. It's thought that Chip Kelly is pass-happy, but he loves running the football and the Eagles try to run the football. There is only so many times I can read "The Eagles love to run the ball, bet you didn't know that!" before it becomes annoying. Yes, Chip Kelly likes to run the football. It was kind of obvious given how he's invested in the offensive line and running backs, no? 

Since opening day 2013, Philadelphia is fourth in total rushes, second in rushing yards, and second in yards per carry. And the Eagles, even if Sam Bradford stays healthy all season, won’t be much different this year, I don’t think. You don’t sign the NFL rushing champ (DeMarco Murray) in free agency, backstop him with a former first-round pick (Ryan Mathews), and employ one of the best change-of-pace backs (Darren Sproles) on the planet if you’re planning to be a passing team.

Right, which is why "we" knew the Eagles are a run-happy team whose high-paced offense leads one to believe they prefer to throw the football when it's been shown many times this assumption isn't true. "We" aren't all making the assumption still, despite Peter's need to teach his readers a lesson many already know. 

Jameis Winston, 2013 calendar year: 13-0 Jameis Winston, 2014 calendar year: 13-0 Jameis Winston, 2015 calendar year: 0-2 (0-2 vs. Mariota)

— Football Perspective (@fbgchase) September 13, 2015

So Winston is playing Mariota one-on-one now and football isn't a team game? Aaron Rodgers can't beat Russell Wilson either, so are there conclusions to be drawn from this based on "Wilson v. Rodgers"?

Ten Things I Think I Think

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

d. Great play design by St. Louis offensive coordinator Frank Cignetti, putting Tavon Austin as a lone back behind the quarterback and simply handing it to him.

Yes, great play design to get an extremely talented and fast running back/wide receiver the football with space to where he can run. I would ask why it took two seasons for the Rams to figure out they should do this, but I've learned not to question the genius of Jeff "8-8" Fisher. He knows more about misusing Austin's talent than I ever will.

h. The hustle by Andrew Luck, tackling Ronald Darby of the Bills after a Darby pick.

Great job throwing an interception and then tackling the guy who intercepted your pass! Kudos to you, Andrew Luck. Sure, it may have been better if you didn't throw the interception, but who cares about a silly interception? 

s. DeAngelo Williams, who sure didn’t look like an insurance policy against the New England front, with his 127-yard opening night.

It's amazing what happens when you get motivated and in shape to play football. Remarkable how Williams went from slow in his cuts last year to fast in his cuts and able to bounce it outside again. I'm sure it had nothing to do with him getting lazy with his conditioning and the Steelers forcing him to lose weight. Good for him. It would be nice if it didn't require a change of scenery to get in shape though. 

y. Jenny Vrentas’ story for The MMQB on J.J. Watt, which contained this nugget from Lawrence Taylor, the last defensive player to win the NFL MVP award: “I thought he should have been MVP. If he stays healthy, he could be all-timer.”

Peter is contractually obligated in every MMQB to mention how other football players think J.J. Watt is going to be a great player. As if watching him isn't enough to know this. I can't wait to watch Watt break Cam Newton in person this week. I'm sure after he has 20 tackles for loss, 10 sacks and 5 interceptions then Peter will find a quote where some ex-football player will say how great Watt is, as if we can't see already. 

2. I think this is what I didn’t like about Week 1:

c. Peyton Manning is 39, and he looked weak-armed on throws to the sideline against Baltimore, and he spent the second half dink-and-dunking an awful lot of throws. Too early to draw any definitive conclusions, but something certainly to watch in the next couple of weeks.

Manning is probably dehydrated again. You know, that whole "dehydration" thing that caused him to lose his arm strength last year towards the end of the season. That probably is popping up again. I still can't believe Manning said his problem last year was dehydration. Perhaps he was dehydrated, but that's a hilarious excuse for his struggles (relatively of course) over the last few weeks of the 2014 season. Me thinks he deludes himself. 

g. Jameis Winston.

h. Jameis Winston’s protection.

It's almost like those two go hand-in-hand or something. This couldn't be true though, could it? 

l. Cam Newton, for not seeing Paul Posluszny on a first-half pick.

I predicted on Twitter that Peter King would point this throw out. He's so predictable.

What a horrible, horrible throw. Now THAT is what Peter King will talk about tomorrow as opposed to the three dropped passes...

— Ben (@bengoodfella) September 13, 2015

I do also notice how Blake "He's totally a different quarterback, now he's making throws like Aaron Rodgers" Bortles threw an awful pick-six which went unmentioned by Peter. It's okay though. I just think it's interesting there are two awful interceptions and one resulted in a total swing of the game, but the one that didn't result in this total swing is the one Peter (predictably) mentions. Also, there is literally nothing else noted about this game that Carolina won 20-9 (without having Kuechly for the entire second half), so the only takeaway from Peter is that Cam Newton still sucks. Seems reasonable. It was an ugly game, that much I can admit.

m. The much-maligned run defense of the Colts, beaten by Bills rookie Karlos Williams for a 26-yard touchdown gallop late in the first half.

BUT LOOK AT ALL THE SHINY NEW TOYS ANDREW LUCK HAS!

s. Don’t want to make too much of the Browns stinking it up at the Meadowlands. But the NFL set up Cleveland to get off to a good start—at the Jets, Titans at home, Raiders at home. And watching the Browns turn it over five times and lose by 21 Sunday, with another day of crisis at quarterback, you just wonder when the black cloud over this franchise is going to go away.

I think the answer to the last part of this sentence is contained in the middle part of the sentence. Find a quarterback, find success. It's not that hard to see the correlation there.

v. Dez Bryant, dehydrated after one quarter of the first game of the season. Come on now.

7. I think it’s a story, the problems between Chuck Pagano and the Colts that Jason LaCanfora and then Jay Glazer discussed on the pre-game shows Sunday. My feeling is the basis of the problems between coach and organization is not a problem Pagano has with GM Ryan Grigson, but rather an issue at the door of owner Jim Irsay. Irsay likes Pagano. But I don’t think he knows if he wants Pagano to be his coach for the next five years. Here’s why: Pagano came from Baltimore as a defensive coach, and the Colts are still a team that has to win despite its defense too often.

I don't blame Pagano for having a bad defense. The Colts haven't invested in defense like they have invested in offense. Of Grigson's four drafts, he has chosen 18 offensive players and 12 defensive players. In the first three rounds of the draft Grigson has chosen 8 offensive players and 3 defensive players. He simply hasn't chosen to invest in the defense through the draft, instead choosing to do so in free agency. Pagano needs guys to work with if he's going to put together a championship defense. 

Buffalo, on Sunday, gashed Indy for 147 rushing yards in 36 carries, proving the run defense is still a major issue.

That’s why, in my opinion, the Colts’ offer to Pagano was probably a lukewarm one. If the defense lets down Indy again, I doubt Pagano will face much of a roadblock from his owner about leaving.

Maybe Chuck Pagano should have built a better defense with the Colts, but the Colts haven't given him the options through the draft to improve the defense. That's how teams improve on either side of the ball, building through the draft, and the Colts simply haven't done that on defense. Pagano hasn't forgotten how to coach defense, that much I know. 

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

b. Pet peeve: The phrase “calendar year Grand Slam,” referring to what Serena Williams was trying to do. That comes from “the department of redundancy department.” A Grand Slam in tennis refers to winning all four big tennis tournaments (Australian, French, Wimbledon, U.S. Open) in the same year. So there’s no need to add “calendar year” to it.

Yes Peter, there is. There is a difference in a tennis player winning the Grand Slam, which is winning all four major tournaments in a row, and a tennis player winning the calendar year Grand Slam, which is winning all four major tournaments in one calendar year. Serena Williams can win all four tournaments and have won the Grand Slam, but not in the same calendar year. That's the difference. 

e. Serena Williams is a great champion, and though I don’t know tennis at all, 

Peter says he knows nothing about tennis. That means immediately look for a definitive statement from Peter as if he does know tennis very well.

"I'm not an expert on this topic, but here is a statement I will make as if I didn't just claim I have no idea what I'm talking about and I want you to take my opinion very seriously." 

it seems to me she’s got a great chance to go down when she retires as the best woman to ever play the game.

But again, Peter doesn't know tennis at all, but treasure Peter's opinion as if it were gold. 

g. Jim Harbaugh’s still got the passion, from the looks of that clipboard-flinging in the first half of his first game coaching in Ann Arbor.

Is that passion or is that acting like a spoiled child when he's coaching? 

p. Speaking of dudes who are not declining: What has gotten into Yoenis Cespedes? Sixteen jacks and 41 RBI in his first 39 Mets games. I’m beginning to think the Mets are not going to blow it.

I can't imagine (contract year) what has gotten into Yoenis Cepedes (contract year) over the past couple of months (contract year). It's like he's flipped a switch (contract year) and turned into move than a power hitter who doesn't get on-base (contract year) very much. I wonder if this will continue to last (contract year) after the season when Cespedes gets a big free agent contract (nope, it won't)?

q. Incredulousness of the Week: The Nationals are two games over .500 with three weeks left in the season. And this: The Tampa Bay pitching staff has allowed fewer runs than the one with Scherzer, Strasburg, Gonzalez and Zimmerman.

Peter, just know who you are fucking with when you mess with the three-time Paper World Series Champions. They are the best team in the majors with the best pitching staff in the history of MLB. Just ask them, they will tell you how great they are. When they make the playoffs again, or maybe even catch fire and win a playoff series, we will all be sorry that no one admitted how great the Nationals are. 

u. Some may wonder (some may cheer) about the lack of my rankings of the teams—the Fine Fifteen—in the column today. Many of you over the years have suggested I should wait till every game of the weekend is played before I rank the teams, and I’m stealing your collective idea this year. This season, the Fine Fifteen will be a standalone column on Tuesdays at The MMQB.

(Bengoodfella shakes fist at the sky out of anger that Peter didn't drop this needless exercise, but understands he does it because it's an easy way to attract questions and venom he can put in his mailbag...anything to find a way to create more content, even if you have to make the story yourself)

The Adieu Haiku

With due credit given to The Knack...

Got a song for you.
Ooh you make my motor run.
My Mariota!

It would actually be "M-m-m-my Mariota." Also, the song is about Sharona giving the singer sexual feelings hence she "makes his motor run," so does this mean Peter King has strong sexual feelings for Marcus Mariota. It's the precociousness isn't it? 

So Peter clearly is one of those people who just recites song lyrics and has no idea what he's reciting. The lyrics in the chorus go:

"Never gonna stop, give it up, such a dirty mind
I always get it up for the touch of the younger kind
My, my, my, aye-aye, whoa!
M-m-m-my Sharona
M-m-m-my Sharona"

So Peter has a dirty mind and doesn't mind getting touched by the younger kind, or perhaps getting touched by a younger kind of quarterback. Due credit given to The Knack, zero credit given to Peter for not knowing the rest of the song's lyrics.

0 comments It's Never Too Early to Panic About the Preseason

Mike Lupica likes being critical (Bengoodfella looks in the mirror sadly because this probably describes him too) and he's very good at telling everyone what they should or should not be doing. He has opinions on President Obama golfing too much, what George Steinbrenner would do, and how "You're the Worst" should actually be a television show about Alex Rodriguez. Mike is very concerned about the New York Giants after their preseason performances on offense and so he decides to write a column where he asks questions that can't be answered until the games start. Still, these are VERY IMPORTANT QUESTIONS based on preseason games. Mostly, Lupica seems concerned the Jets have their shit together more than the Giants do. This type of tyranny will not stand.

At least about this there can be no question: If the Giants are allowed to play other teams’ second-team and even third-team defenses with their second-team offense this season, then they might be favorites to win another Super Bowl.

Hilarious. Eli Manning sucks because it's the preseason and he hasn't won the Super Bowl yet.

Are you kidding? Give the ball to Ryan Nassib, Eli Manning’s backup, in the second half in August and look out.

And as everybody knows, how a backup quarterback plays in the preseason against other backups will immediately translate to that backup quarterback playing well in the regular season against the starters.

This time it was the Jets and this time Nassib threw three touchdown passes and the Giants won again, making it 4-0 in the preseason,

Everyone panic! The Giants are 4-0 in the preseason but haven't looked good while being 4-0. This portends trouble in the future because the Giants aren't winning in the sexy way that Mike Lupica requires the Giants to win. Derek Jeter would not accept a 4-0 record if those wins weren't earned in the right way, so why should the Giants say they are 4-0 when it's only their backups winning preseason games? A panic needs to happen, grab your pitchforks, Mike Lupica is storming the streets of New York.

which means this is the most meaningless and fascinating and frightening unbeaten preseason — to Giants fans — in all of team history.

No, this is the most meaningless, fascinating, and frightening unbeaten preseason in NFL history. Is a 4-0 record really an unbeaten record if Mike Lupica refuses to regard it as so? You know the answer before I even finished the question...of course not. The Giants may be 4-0 in the preseason, but these meaningless preseason games definitely mean something for the upcoming season because Mike Lupica has a column he needs to write and this is the only idea he had for a column.

Because when you add up everything we have seen and everything that has happened since the preseason began in Canton, the two most positive developments on offense are these:

1. Eli Manning isn't injured.

2. It's preseason and teams don't always game plan so an offensive/defensive unit's performance may mean very little?

-One two-minute drill from Eli at the end of the first half on Friday night.
-A rookie receiver out of Division II Newberry College named Corey Washington, who has looked like this year’s Victor Cruz even if he has been mostly playing with Second-Half Nassib and Curtis Painter.

I tell you, Mike Lupica works hard. He works hard to discredit any type of success the Giants had in preseason so that he can sound the alarm bells. The Giants may have found an undrafted free agent receiver who can complement Victor Cruz, but that's not going to be enough for Mike Lupica because Washington looked good with Nassib and Painter throwing him the football. Since Eli Manning sucks, how much will Washington's skills drop off when Eli is throwing him the ball?

But whatever happened against the Jets, and that includes all the good things that happened once Eli got the ball for the last time Friday night, Tom Coughlin’s new offense — the vision of new offensive coordinator Ben McAdoo — will enter the regular season with so many more questions to it than answers it’s not even close.

You mean the Giants team hasn't immediately figured out a new offense with one offseason of work in the new system? If the Giants' offensive players can't grasp a new system immediately then that system will obviously be a failure. It's not like NFL playbooks are complicated or anything.

We keep hearing that because of the new offense, the Giants might get off to a slow start. Gee, there’s good news. How did last season’s slow start work out?

The 2007 Giants started off 0-2 and they won the Super Bowl.

The 2011 Giants were 6-6 and they managed to win the Super Bowl.

But no really, I'm sure the slow start the Giants may hypothetically have can only mean the 2014 season will be a waste. Why even bother to play?

There are still new guys at right guard and left guard and center and a tackle, Will Beatty, coming back from a broken leg.

And the Giants are the only NFL team with question marks after the preseason is over. There must be panic about this, because how can the Giants be expected to compete with all of these other perfect NFL teams who don't have roster questions?

now that Hakeem Nicks is catching balls again and running at full speed, he’s doing all that for the Colts. 

If only the Giants would have known that Nicks would be healthy and could contribute, they could have kept Nicks on the roster. Mike Lupica is great at pointing out which free agents the Giants should have kept after those players have been signed by another team and appear to be healthy. If he were a GM, Mike Lupica would be Executive of the Year if he were allowed to wait until the end of the NFL season and then point out what moves his team should have made.

If Corey Washington does not turn out to be the new Victor Cruz, tell me who the second-most reliable wide receiver is after Cruz.

If Eli Manning dies in a parachuting accident, tell me who the best quarterback on the roster is again?

If the Giants' new stadium spontaneously combusted under the weight of Mike Lupica's ego, then where would the Giants play their home games?

If Tom Coughlin has a heart attack on the sidelines, is Ben McAdoo ready for a head coaching job? WHY HASN'T THIS BEEN ANSWERED IN THE PRESEASON GAMES YET?

Tell me how much you think the Giants are going to get out of tight end.

Who knows? Plenty of teams have succeeded without having a Pro Bowl tight end.

Tell me how sure you are that an almost entirely rebuilt offensive line is going to protect a quarterback who took the kind of beating that Eli took a year ago, especially since so many guys on that offensive line should still be wearing name tags.

And of course because Mike Lupica doesn't know the names of the offensive linemen then this must mean these offensive linemen are terrible at protecting Eli Manning. Mike Lupica is a gold mine of knowledge when it comes to the NFL after all, it's not like he just reacts based on what he's seen from the last game or anything.

And please tell me that you think the Giants of Coughlin and Manning, who haven’t won a single playoff game around those two Super Bowls, who haven’t even made the playoffs lately, are ready to take back the NFC East from Chip Kelly’s Philadelphia Eagles.

The Giants don't have to make the playoffs. They can win this thing called the "Wild Card" which means they just need to have at least the fifth or sixth best record in the NFC to make the playoffs. I understand the concept of the Wild Card isn't relatively new, but Mike Lupica has been busy talking over people on television and lecturing the President of the United States, so he probably hasn't had time to learn about this new "Wild Card" thingie.

Going into the regular season the Jets look a lot more organized on offense, even with a second-year quarterback, than the Giants do. And the Jets are a team built around defense.

And because the Jets are built around defense, there is no way they could be organized on offense. Teams built around defense are unorganized on offense, just like teams built around offense usually only have 9-10 guys playing defense on the field due to not having hired anyone who knows how to coordinate a defense.

It doesn’t mean the Giants can’t figure this out when the games count, far from it.

RETREAT! RETREAT!

Mike Lupica has some hot takes about the many questions surrounding the Giants' preseason performance and coats them in doubt about whether the team can be good enough offensively at the beginning of the season to win games, but then is all like, "But you know, it's preseason so who gives a shit...now back to how screwed the Giants are based on their preseason performance."

Nothing like having it both ways, huh? Lupica writes an entire article about how the preseason performance of the Giants means the team is disorganized, the offensive isn't being picked up quickly enough, and there are only two positives to take out of the preseason, but then wants to act like none of these things matter. He's got his bases covered. If the Giants struggle, he can spit out a "I told you the Giants were in trouble" column and if the Giants start out strong he can spit out a "The Giants had issues that I covered in a column, but as I said, it was preseason, and credit goes to the Giants for figuring out and correcting all of the huge problems that I alone pointed out the team had."

We have seen them struggle before in the preseason, but that was when Eli was fully in his comfort zone with Kevin Gilbride’s offense, the only one he has ever known as a professional football player.

Mike Lupica is now acknowledging all of this teeth grinding means nothing. It's typical shitty writing from Lupica that he takes the time to point out how the Giants are screwed if they start off slow (like last year and how did that turn out?!), but then say, "Oh, teams start off slow all the time." Keep riding that middle ground, Mike. Rip the team, but don't rip them hard enough to where your ego gets bruised if you are wrong.

Of course this continues to be the most unusual era in the 90 years of the Giants: Coughlin and Eli winning those two Super Bowls and not winning a single playoff game in any other season they have been together.

Sure, that's odd. I would take the trade-off though.

“No, (I’m) not concerned at this point,” Manning said. “I know we have to keep working and keep getting better. It is not where it needs to be, but I thought there was progress in today’s game. We are going to keep working. It’ll be better and better as things go on and hopefully it will be better next week and better for that opening game. We should be in a better situation. It is not going to be complete at that point. We are going have to continue to make improvements throughout the season.”

They have had four preseason games now. No one is saying the new schemes and the new approach should be “complete” by now.

Mike Lupica earlier in the column:

Tom Coughlin’s new offense — the vision of new offensive coordinator Ben McAdoo — will enter the regular season with so many more questions to it than answers it’s not even close. We keep hearing that because of the new offense, the Giants might get off to a slow start. Gee, there’s good news.

Lupica didn't use the word "complete," but he certainly seems to expect the Giants to have more answers about the offense than they have and finds a slow start to be unacceptable. So it seems like Lupica expects the Giants' offense to be complete without too much more room for improvement.

But you have to believe the first-team Giants’ offense should look better than it does, with one more preseason game, this Thursday night, to play. You would have thought they would have looked good moving the football more than once.

Possibly, but doesn't the fact the second-team offense has looked good mean that some of the Giants players are picking up the new offensive system and can find success in it? I guess not.

You can only imagine what the conversation would be like today if Eli hadn’t taken them down the field that one time Friday night. The Giants defense is going to be better this season, and maybe a lot better than it was last season.

But this doesn't matter because the Giants are a team built around offense. There's no way they can win games with their defense if they are an offensive team. It's impossible for the offense to struggle while the defense excels and the Giants to win games as a result.

It won’t matter if scoring touchdowns is as difficult for this team as scoring runs for the Yankees has been.

And of course Mike ends being negative. Here is Mike Lupica's take on the Giants offense in the preseason.

-It's preseason and the Giants offense hasn't looked good, which means they will start the season off slowly.

-There are so many questions the Giants have that weren't answered in the preseason. This is a bad sign for things to come.

-Who cares? It's preseason.

-The Giants have started slow before with an offense they already know, so their struggles in McAdoo's offense can mean nothing. The Giants' first-team offense doesn't necessarily need to move the ball in the preseason.

-The Giants first-team offense needs to move the ball in the preseason.

-The Giants first-team offense struggling in the preseason means something and if the defense has to carry the team then the Giants won't win games.

-Defense can't win games, except for the Jets who built a team around defense to win games.

Mike Lupica is the best at trying to be the worst. Does anyone like him?

8 comments MMQB Review: More Official Insanity Edition

Peter King is a little annoyed this week. He wanted to talk about what he wanted to talk about in this week's MMQB. But nooooo, the new officials had to go and have a bad week calling games incorrectly and now Peter has to talk about that in MMQB. Of course, after Peter wrote MMQB the officials decided to award a football game to the Seattle Seahawks after they "caught" a pass in the end zone (which a Packers player actually caught) for a touchdown to win a game. My favorite gif was of one official ruling interception and the other official ruling it was a touchdown. Overall, everything is such an inconvenience for Peter. He wanted to talk about Steve Sabol, which he does for 25% of this column anyway, but now he has to talk about the officials first and it is getting in the way of his Steve Sabol tribute. Peter also has some strong words for people who pay for a ticket to a concert and then have the audacity to choose what they do when attending that concert.

On a day to pay tribute to the late Steve Sabol, which I'll do for a good chunk of this column, it's maddening and saddening to have to discuss the officiating disaster so prominently. 

I know. It's maddening to have to discuss a topic that is about the NFL and deserves a discussion in an column that is supposed to be about the NFL. Why can't Peter just write about his daughter's softball games and give random shout-outs to people his readers don't know in his weekly column about the NFL? Don't Peter's readers care more about what's going on his own life and what he thinks about "The Office" than they care about NFL news?

The legitimacy of NFL games is at stake with officials who simply aren't suited to work games of the intensity and importance of Atlanta-Denver last Monday or New England-Baltimore Sunday night.

These games are super-important and super intense. Mess up a Washington-Cincinnati game and that doesn't matter too much because that is an unimportant, non-intense game, but these super-duper important games that are played between two teams that Peter really thinks are great teams should not be stood for. Let's execute every replacement official for having the audacity to mess up the Atlanta-Denver game. The Broncos aren't a 1-2 team, they are a really, really important 1-2 team.

If the lockout isn't solved by Wednesday or early Thursday, 25 percent of the season will have been officiated by the fifth-stringers from the NAIA and other such football hinterlands.

And Peter swears to God, if a really, really important game is messed up because of these new officials then he is going to be unhappy. Can't the old officials come back to call only the games that Peter deems to be very important?

In Minnesota, 49ers coach Jim Harbaugh got two free replay challenges he didn't deserve near the end of the second half (video below). When he called his third timeout late in the fourth quarter, he asked referee Ken Roan if he was allowed to challenge a play during the timeout because he'd noticed what he thought was a Minnesota fumble during the timeout. Roan allowed him the challenge, even though you've got to have a timeout remaining if you throw the challenge flag, because the penalty for losing a challenge is a loss of a timeout. 

But how important was this game? Minnesota v. San Francisco? Not that important so who cares if the officials completely ignored the rules on how a challenge is supposed to work? Let's move on.

In Tennessee, the stunner of all stunners gave the Titans a crucial 12 free yards on what turned out to be the decisive field-goal drive in overtime, the drive that provided the winning points in Tennessee's 44-41 victory. Tennessee had 2nd-and-18 from its 44, and Jake Locker threw what was ruled a 24-yard completion to tight end Craig Stevens. At the end of the play, Detroit linebacker Stephen Tulloch was called for a 15-yard personal foul on Stevens. But the completion was reversed and ruled an incompletion.

Now the officials had to mark off the 15-yard penalty. Presumably, replay official Earnie Frantz or the officiating supervisor told the referee, Gerald Wright, to mark the 15-yard penalty from the Tennessee 44. But Wright marked it from the Detroit 44, giving the Titans a first down at the Detroit 29. If the crew had marked it from the Titans 44, the first down would have been from the Detroit 41. As it was, Tennessee, from the 29, was already in field-goal range. It's beyond inexcusable -- and to think the league office put an extra set of eyes in the replay booth to ensure debacles like a 27-yard personal foul wouldn't happen. It did anyway.

Are we still watching these games? We are? Then the NFL doesn't give a shit. The NFL has no reason to care when fans still come to the games and watch the games on television. It's just like the NFL lockout last summer. The NFL didn't care if they ever came to an agreement with the players. Either way, the general public would be salivating for NFL action whenever the game returned. The NFL wasn't worried about losing the fans because they knew the fans would come back when/if there was an agreement. So all this complaining about the officials will mean nothing until a player gets severely injured because the officials can't control the game. Sure, the NFL is ashamed the new officials are screwing up calls like this, but not ashamed enough to budge on negotiations with the old officials. At this point, players are exaggerating their reaction when a penalty is called, seeing what they can get away with without being flagged, and I question whether the officials could keep control of a game between two teams that don't like each other. Still, the NFL doesn't care because we keep watching and the same sports media that whines about the officials still writes about the NFL games every week. It won't change until it has to change.

It's only a matter of time before some gaffe like a 27-yard penalty or two extra challenges costs some team a game it should have won. I think the league is going to have to compromise more than it wants to.

Very interesting comment by Peter on Monday in concern to the Seattle-Green Bay game later Monday night. I think it will come to something more than that. The NFL has already doubled-down on the new officials by warning players and coaches not to criticize them and fining coaches who argue too aggressively with the new officials. Those Packer players who criticize the refs over Twitter are going to get hit hard by the NFL with fines. I think the NFL will have to compromise more than they want once an agreement is reached, and one will be reached at some point, but Peter is wrong. The NFL doesn't care if an official's mistake costs a team a game it should have won. You could argue Detroit should have won the game Peter just talked about against the Titans. The Packers should have won the game against the Seahawks last night and I'm not sure the NFL cares. I don't know what will cause the officials or the NFL to get real and come to the bargaining table to make a real effort, but I don't know if a blatantly missed call that affects the outcome of a game will do it at this point. There may need to be a player severely injured before either side gets real about an agreement.

The news could be ominous for Darrelle Revis. We should know by this afternoon, after he exits an MRI tube in New Jersey, if Revis will become the biggest loss any team has had this year. His left knee caved on the grass in Miami without being hit, the kind of awkward sight and subsequent crumbling of a player that makes you think it could be a serious knee injury. Why would the loss of Revis be a disaster for the Jets?

Because the media talks about what a great defensive coordinator Rex Ryan is, yet it seems his entire defense hinges on the health of one player? I realize Revis gives the Jets an advantage other teams don't have in that Revis doesn't need safety-help, but Rex Ryan had a lot of success in Baltimore without a Revis-type corner and I feel like we get told a lot how good of a coordinator he is. So I would think, banking on this genius-level defensive-coordinating skill, Ryan can figure out a way to run his defense without Revis. Every other NFL team manages to play defense without a player like Revis, so I would assume the Jets can figure out a way also. I have also heard the argument the Jets safeties can't cover in the secondary very well and are mostly used in run support in Ryan's system, which is another bit of reasoning I don't really care about. I'm sorry the Jets can't seem to find safeties who can cover receivers in the secondary, welcome to what the rest of the NFL and their fans have to deal with. If Rex Ryan is such a great defensive coach, I am sure he can figure something out. That's why you have backups. I could feel sympathy for the Jets and would lay off Ryan if Cromartie goes down for the season as well, but that hasn't happened.

Because they're not ready to put their recent first-round Boise State corner on Kyle Wilson Island.

Of course Wilson can't be Darrelle Revis, but this is his third year in the NFL. At this point, shouldn't Wilson be ready to start for the Jets and do a good job? Even if he can't be Darrelle Revis, he should at least be able to play corner sufficiently. He isn't some rookie being forced to start before he is ready. He has been in the Jets defensive system for over two years. Time to start earning that first round pick money.

Then Peter compares the Titans special teams play to the Music City Miracle. Both were very well executed plays, but the Music City Miracle was executed under such tremendously tough circumstances where the Titans had to score a touchdown or they lost the game. The special teams play on Sunday was just a really cool special teams play that helped to decide, but did not decide, the outcome of a game.

That's the strength of Jerry Reese as a general manager. He's not a knee-jerk guy. Last April, I wrote a story on Reese (and, in particular, how well he works with Tom Coughlin), and I sat in his office for a while talking about roster-building.

Seemingly every year Peter King talks about how well Jerry Reese builds the Giants roster. No one denies his ability to build a quality roster at this point. I just wish Peter would stop talking about it because it isn't a new story.

The subject of the abuse he took from the talk-show set and fans came up for letting Steve Smith and Kevin Boss go in the 2011 offseason. He got a smile on his face and played me a couple of, shall we say, interesting, voice mails from critical fans after those players went to Philadelphia and Kansas City by way of Oakland, respectively. He asked me not to report what was said in the voicemails, but let's just say you need to have some blisters on your hide to be a general manager for a New York sports team.

You need some blisters on your hide to be the GM for a New York sports team, but for every other GM in the NFL it is just smooth sailing while having zero issues with angry or disgruntled fans.

Brandon Jacobs had worn out his welcome; Brown and rookie David Wilson will have a shot to replace him -- and that looks good so far.

Andre Brown has played well for a game and a half and David Wilson hasn't looked very good so far. It also helped that Brandon Jacobs tends to be somewhat overrated, at least over the last season or two. He wasn't a guy who the Giants should have kept around. Jacobs hasn't been active this year due to injury and he is 30 years old coming off the worst year since his rookie season.

Charting players who have been good Reese picks in his first six drafts with the Giants:

I understand the purpose of this exercise, but Peter is basically proving the Giants had one good pick in each of their last six drafts. That's not saying much really. I would hope each draft had at least one good player come out of it, specifically since the Giants have won two Super Bowls in that time.

Yes, Jerry Reese has been great over the past few years. I'm not sure why it took a blowout win over a bad defensive team to reignite Peter's yearly passion of showing how great of a job Reese has done. It used to be charts about the New England Patriots (more specifically charts about Matt Cassel, the Patriots draft picks, and Tom Brady) that Peter loved to write in MMQB and now it is a discussion, with draft picks used as a supporting example, of how great Jerry Reese is at his job.

I thought the best way to tell the story of Sabol's impact on football would be to find 10 people whose lives were impacted by Sabol and who can tell what he meant to them, and to the sport long-term.

Did you know he was once asked to be commissioner? That he had Bill Belichick eating out of his modest hands? That he and his dad made Vince Lombardi cry? That he's the reason Mike Mayock's on TV? That he's the inspiration for a 23-year-old photography student in a small town in Ireland?

I had absolutely no idea that Steve Sabol was the inspiration for a 23-year-old photography student in small town Ireland. This super-specific nugget of information somehow managed to evade my knowledge.

Jim Marshall, former player

"In the '60s, most coaches felt cameras and microphones were an intrusion, and had no place inside a team, or on players. But it was a great, great positive for the players that America could get to see what we were really like. Steve wired me for 'Big Game America.' He showed me in team meetings, in games and he even showed me skydiving and skiing. When he came in to talk to me about participating in the project, he said, 'I want to show football players as they really are.'

Nowadays this would consist of showing the NFL player sleeping, studying his playbook for that week's game plan and then going out to a club.

David Maraniss, author

"Steve believed Lombardi's voice was something that separated him from others in history, and gave him his character. With NFL Films, the voice was central to the myth-making. They used John Facenda, and he was called the voice of God. But there was a practice in Green Bay once, and a dog got on the field and was interfering with practice. They couldn't get the dog to leave. All the players were laughing it up with this dog on the field, and Vince saw it, and he just yelled over, 'What the hell's going on here? Get that dog off the field!' The dog scampered away. That really did happen. Sabol witnessed it, and he thought it said something about Lombardi -- that his voice was so powerful, so controlling.''

This doesn't seem like anecdotal evidence at all. I once saw a beer in the wild and screamed at the bear to go away. The bear started to walk in a different direction and thereby my voice can make bears run away.

Brett Favre, former quarterback, current douchebag and media-attention hog


(stabs self in the eyes with a knife)

"It's funny. It used to be when I first got into the game nobody wanted to wear those wires for games. It was like, 'Get that camera out of my face.' Late in my career, it was, 'Hey, I'm wired today! Cool!' Numerous times I would tell [Packers PR chief] Jeff Blumb or [Vikings PR men] Tom West and Bob Hagan no, because I thought they wired me too much. But now, thinking back, I wish I would have done it more. It shows a side of the game you want to remember forever.

Plus Favre didn't mind being wired because, you know, Brett Favre absolutely adores any form of attention he can get and if he was wired for a game that means he was getting attention based how he played the game of football like a little kid would play. At the time when he thought he was wired too much, Favre had not quite become the narcissistic, ego-driven, media-hound that he developed into later in his career. Early in his career Favre would have done so many other things in order to grab attention if he had known earlier in his career how well it worked.

3. San Francisco (2-1). Sunday, in Minnesota, was the first real sign that the Niners might be mortal.

No offense to the 49ers, but they have Alex Smith as the quarterback. He can't manage the hell out of every game while having the lead. So the question becomes whether he can do what he did last year in the playoff game against the Saints, when he was able to play well in situations where he had to throw the ball and make things happen with the 49ers offense while coming from behind.

9. Chicago (2-1). Mayhem turns to fine working order in the span of a week. The Bears held St. Louis to 160 yards, and physically handled the St. Louis offensive line.

"Fine working order?" Did Peter watch the Chicago offense this past week? Why am I asking this question? Of course he didn't.

15. Denver (1-2). For those who'd like to throw Peyton Manning out with the trash, here's a stat for your consideration. Yards per attempt in his last healthy season, 2010: 6.9. Yards per attempt this season: 7.2. Time, people. Time.

Right, time. Time is going to wear down Manning's arm strength and test him the rest of this season. These yards per attempt only show me that Manning has had to come back in the last two games, so he has had to be more aggressive in moving his team down the field. The eye test of watching Manning play tells me his arm strength isn't by any stretch of the imagination bad, but there are 13 games left in the season and I don't see his arm getting stronger as the year progresses.

Flaherty's the unsung hero on the Giants' coaching staff, and he proved it again Thursday night. Eli Manning was sacked once in 51 minutes of play time, and rarely under duress. A first-time starting back, Andre Brown, rushed for 113 yards, and the Giants held the ball for 36 minutes. It shouldn't be this easy, but Flaherty's line made it look that way.

It also helps when the opposing team didn't show up to play and laid down once they got hit in the chin a few times.

Goats of the Week

Dan Carpenter, K, Miami. Missed a 47-yarder, wide left, in regulation -- in a game that went to overtime. Missed a 48-yarder, wide left, on the second possession in overtime, a kick that would have won the game. I know Carpenter's 41-yarder in the final minute forced overtime. Goody goody. A kicker can't miss two kicks in the 40s.

I probably would have added Joe Philbin as a "goat" as well, because he called timeout to negate a blocked kick by his team. Hey, at least he iced the kicker though.

"Who wants to support something that puts on a performance of embarrassment? If I was a fan of the Carolina Panthers, I would be holding my head down in shame of the product that was out there today."

-- Cam Newton, after his Panthers lost to the Giants 36-7 Thursday night.

Get a hold of yourself, fella. A bomb didn't fall on Charlotte.

No, a bomb didn't fall on Charlotte, but this is somewhere near the attitude I want my quarterback to have. I prefer this attitude to a lack of caring and general comments about needing to prepare harder next time. If Brett Favre said something like this then Peter would see this as an example of him taking responsibility for the loss and it would show just how much Favre cares about winning or losing. Cam Newton says something like this and all of a sudden he is being overly dramatic. Newton was absolutely right. I was ashamed to watch that game and see the effort that was put up offensively and defensively. It was pathetic and embarrassing to get your ass kicked on national television. Being a 23 year old, Newton obviously has to mature some, but it's clear he cares, which makes me happy.

Mr. Starwood Preferred Member Travel Note of the Week

Not a travel note per se. More a lifestyle, world-we-live-in-today note.

This is actually more of a "why can't people act in public the exact way I want them to act in public" note from Peter King. It seems there is a consistent pattern about Peter. He has this way about him where he wants everyone to act in public the exact way he believes they should act. I tend to believe if we lived in a communist country or dictatorship Peter would work for the national police force ensuring all citizens behaved the way the State wanted them to behave.

Drove over to see Bruce Springsteen at the Meadowlands Wednesday night.

So the show starts. We're in an upper tier, last row. The fourth song is "Hungry Heart," which has the crowd going. The fifth song, "We Take Care of Our Own," is one of my new faves, from his latest album. I notice the four guys next me, maybe in their late 20s, all have their iPhones out, texting or reading email during the song.

No fucking way! People who had purchased tickets to hear Bruce Springsteen sing songs were choosing to spend their time hearing Bruce Springsteen sing songs while on their phones? Why can't we live in a country where everyone does the exact thing that Peter wants them to do? How dare they choose to listen to the music and text someone about how much they like the concert?

It doesn't make sense to go to a concert and check email, but if a person wants to do that, that is his/her choice. How does this affect Peter's enjoyment of the concert negatively?

They're texting or reading. "Death to My Hometown" is next, and I look around, and it seems half the section is fooling around with phones.

In fairness to them, "Death to My Hometown" isn't one of the best songs on Springsteen's new album.

We're such cellaholics. I get that. But outdoor concert events like this one, these are the nights where the experience should be enough to make you put away the phone (or at least stash it until you get in the bathroom), unless you're just writing down the setlist or something like that.

Maybe they were all writing down the setlist. Why does it make a difference what they were writing? While I agree with Peter that you would think these people would enjoy the concert without the use of their phone, these people paid for tickets as well, so if they want to do something else while they listen to the music that is their choice.

If Steve Jobs were still here, I wonder whether he'd feel triumphant that the masses can't live without his invention for three hours, or despondent that the masses can't live without his invention for three hours.

Considering Jobs spent his life trying to make his products absolutely essential to people, then I would say he would be triumphant.

 1. I think this is what I liked about Week 3:

h. Doug Martin, who runs every attempt like it's his last.

Oh yes, and Martin runs for 3 yards on every rush attempt. It's weird to me that Doug Martin seems to becoming known as a really good running back. His yards per carry in the three games he has played this year are 4.0, 3.3, and 2.8. He's gotten 63 carries and gained for 214 yards. He is 2nd in the NFL in carries and 12th in yards. His yards per rushing attempt is 39th in the NFL among the qualified leaders. I don't dislike Doug Martin, and he may run every attempt like it is his last attempt, but he isn't this explosive game-changing back that I think some people believe him to be. Maybe I'm picking on him too much because he isn't explosive, but I would hope an NFL running back could get 214 yards on 63 carries.

q. Heck of a bomb, Blaine Gabbert.

It was basically a slant, not even close to a bomb.

2. I think this is what I didn't like about Week 3

a. Tebow shirtless again. Come on, Tim. You're on the verge of becoming the girl who wants to be respected for her brain dressing in next to nothing.

 I don't think he wants to be respected for his football ability. It's not a bad thing, but I believe football is a means to an end for ex-backup QB punt protector Jets. That "end?" World domination.

b. The protection for Drew Brees. He must have gotten hit 15 times after releasing the ball by various and sundry Chiefs.

At least they didn't get paid additional money to hit Brees...as far as we know.

4. I think Chris Johnson is costing every great running back of the future about a million bucks a year. Pay the guy big and he disappears.

What about Ray Rice? Isn't he helping the running back of the future who gets paid? Doesn't this show these players will still come out and play at a high level? Matt Forte is injured, but he was also playing well before he got hurt and earned a large contract from the Bears. Are these two players not helping great running backs who want to get paid?

7. I think, in case you didn't catch my drift about Cam Newton, I objected to three things he did Thursday night, aside from playing his worst all-around game as an NFL player. One: Scoring in the third quarter to make it 23-7, and then pulling the Superman act in the end zone; bush league.

Because I hate myself, I surfed a few Giants message boards after the game. A lot of the writers on this certain site I went to were talking about how they are glad Manning has class (apparently refusing to play for the Chargers is all but forgotten) and isn't as immature as Newton has shown himself to be. It doesn't matter to me what they write really, but Cam shouldn't have done the Superman-thing after scoring that touchdown. He looked like a loser doing it.

So Newton isn't completely mature yet, he is only 23. We all know Manning came to the Giants and was immediately incredibly mature. How quickly people forget it seems. Newton has been thrust into the spotlight as the savior of a franchise and like any normal person he isn't ready for it emotionally. Everything non-football related Newton does very well, but he tends to pout when Carolina gets their ass kicked and in this situation he worried too much about putting on a show. It happens and he may learn from it. I'm not the person who blindly defends his favorite teams and players, but Peter is making a bigger deal out of this on Monday than it should be three days after the game was played.

Three: Talking postgame about the loss like his dog just died.

I'm glad he cares enough to be down about the loss. I don't see how this is a bad thing. I think this is what the fans want from him. I don't speak for a group of people, and no one wants to see Cam pout, but it is nice to see responsibility taken. He came out in his postgame news conference and wasn't rude, wasn't short with the media, but answered the questions and was clearly upset about losing in the way Carolina did. He isn't the most mature player in the NFL, but he came out and played like shit, just like the rest of the team did. Acknowledging the shame the Carolina fan base felt was simply reflecting the feelings of the fans who came out on a beautiful Thursday night to support a team that clearly didn't give a shit.

Bernie Kosar once had a great line about a quarterback's job once the game ends. He said the postgame interview scrum is like the fifth quarter, where you help set the agenda for your teammates and, in part, your organization, for the next week. When you do that, you can't be an all-is-lost guy, which is what Newton looked like after the Giants beat Carolina.

I don't know what Peter's deal is, but he is taking that one quote and making it into a bigger deal than it probably is. The Panthers came out and laid down an absolute turd in front of a national television audience and Newton let his understanding about the fan's frustrations show through in his quotes. Three days after the game, this really isn't a big enough deal to devote this much time to it. This quote isn't taken completely out of context, but I think it is a welcome quote to read. Peter has never taken a quote and given it no context, has he?

I think Newton has a habit of saying things off-the-cuff that come off as stupid, but Peter King has a habit of taking these quotes from Newton and blowing them up. If anything Peter should jump all over the quote from Newton that partially took away credit from the Giants for playing so well. Newton played his first national television game and had the worst game of his short NFL career and the fans really were embarrassed. I know because I am one. So in the context of Newton having the worst game of his career in front of the biggest television audience of his career, he said the fans are probably embarrassed to be a fan of the team. Superman crap aside, I don't get the issue Peter appears to have such a huge problem with in regard to this quote. Maybe he saw Newton at a Bruce Springsteen concert using his cell phone mid-concert.

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

a. The Triple Crown is a pretty big deal

Is this a thought anymore than it is a point that goes without saying that only a true idiot would say without believing he is truly stating the obvious?

If the season ended Sunday, Miguel Cabrera would do the exact same thing -- win the batting and RBI titles, and tie Josh Hamilton for the homer run title with 42. I admire the ridiculous season of Mike Trout, but if the season were over and I had a vote, Cabrera would be my MVP.

There is a reason Peter doesn't have a vote. He probably can't tell us who Mike Trout plays for.

e. Dodgers: 11-16 since The Trade.

See! It isn't the Boston fans, Red Sox management or the Boston media that is the problem. The problem are the players, not anything Red Sox management did wrong. I would say maybe Peter wants Beckett, Gonzalez and Crawford to come out and take personal responsibility for the Dodgers/Red Sox playing so poorly and sympathizing with fans of both teams, but apparently Peter doesn't like it when players do that. God, the Red Sox and their fans are so tortured.

Green Bay 21, Seattle 20.

To a lesser quarterback than Aaron Rodgers, I would make Seattle's cacophonous 12th man crowd a big factor tonight. And it still very well could be; Rodgers calls a ton of stuff at the line, and he changes plays with alacrity because Mike McCarthy gives him immense freedom in the no-huddle offense at the line.
But you can bet the Packers worked overtime on hand and non-verbal signals in practice this week. So I say this comes down to five Green Bay receivers -- Jordy Nelson, Donald Driver, Greg Jennings, Randall Cobb and Jermichael Finley -- making enough plays against the top five Seattle secondary men (Seahawks should be in nickel a majority of the time) -- Richard Sherman, Brandon Browner and Marcus Trufant at corner, and the punishing pair of Earl Thomas and Kam Chancellor at safety. By the score, you can see I believe this game could go either way,

Not really. From the score I can see Peter chose the Packers to win this game. The game did go the other way, but it is kind of a cop-out to say the game could go either way. That's pretty much true for every NFL game.

The Adieu Haiku

So long, Steve Sabol.
Do those slo-mo spirals look
as good from up there?

Two straight weeks of ending MMQB with a haiku. Why? Why do NFL writers love writing haikus so much? I'm guessing Peter will end next week's MMQB with a haiku about the ineptitude of the officials.