Showing posts with label alex smith. Show all posts
Showing posts with label alex smith. Show all posts

Tuesday, September 2, 2014

12 comments MMQB Review: Roger Goodell's Mitigating Factors in Regard to Domestic Violence Edition

Peter King discussed the injury to Sam Bradford last week in MMQB, though he didn't ask the big question that I had, which was "How come the Rams didn't do better in bringing in a backup/competition for a quarterback they weren't even sure was the future of the franchise and is always injured?" Peter told us that history says the Seahawks won't repeat and complained about the price of a carry-on bag with Frontier Airlines as he vowed to keep himself to three lattes at Starbucks per week, which apparently don't cost him any money. This week Peter talks about domestic violence and how Roger Goodell's new policy (after Ray Rice got two games of course) will impact future NFL players in the same position as Rice, how Roger Goodell doesn't understand why everyone was mad at him, has more Chip Kelly coach-speak to share as if it were wisdom, and gets to the bottom on why Michael Sam was cut. Apparently "it was a football decision" is not enough of an explanation for Peter.

I was planning to address the Roger Goodell about-face on domestic violence later in the column, but the Ray McDonald arrest at 3 a.m. Sunday in San Jose, and the 49ers defensive tackle being charged with felony domestic violence, changed all that.

There is no time to talk later about Roger Goodell's about-face on domestic violence because an NFL player got arrested for domestic violence and this must be discussed immediately. After all, I'm guessing 25% of loyal MMQB readers just quit reading after the first two pages once the quotes, tweets and thoughts from Peter start showing up. If Peter buries the about-face from Goodell too far back then fewer people will read it.

So this bit of inside-MMQB for those waiting for my piece on Green Bay GM Ted Thompson: We’re going to run it Wednesday here at The MMQB, when we can give it proper treatment the day before the season. 

Because Peter wouldn't want any actual NFL information to take the place of any really interesting "Quotes of the Week," "Tweets of the Week" or the entire page dedicated to Peter's own thoughts. Obviously, MMQB is mostly about Peter King and not about relevant information on the NFL from an NFL insider. The information on Ted Thompson can wait, but Peter's interview with himself about Alex Smith's contract extension, another half page of Peter's thoughts about NFL cuts, and whether Logan Mankins is mad at Bill Belichick CAN NOT wait. That is all very time-sensitive information.

San Jose police responded to a complaint early Sunday morning involving San Francisco defensive tackle Ray McDonald and a woman that NBC Bay Area reported is pregnant. She had bruises on her neck and arms, the Sacramento Bee reported, and McDonald was jailed on suspicion of felony domestic violence charges.

“Felony domestic violence is a serious charge in any jurisdiction,” said Kim Gandy, president and CEO of the National Network to End Domestic Violence, in a phone interview Sunday afternoon, hearing the news for the first time.

Gandy was one of six national authorities on domestic violence who helped Goodell shape his decisive new policy, first in a lengthy phone call in mid-August and then in a meeting at the league offices in Manhattan on Aug. 21.

I like how Roger Goodell needs to call on six authorities on domestic violence in order to shape a new policy. Goodell needs no authorities when it comes to shaping policies on NFL players testing positive for drugs, getting a DUI or nearly any other offense that will result in an NFL player being suspended. Yet, domestic violence vexes the shit out of Roger Goodell that he needs six other people to tell him how to shape his policy. Goodell does have an agreed-upon drug policy to use when it comes to suspending players who violate the policy, but he didn't need help suspending Ben Roethlisberger or Pacman Jones for the season when they ran afoul of the law. It's just funny to me that he can't seem to appropriately punish NFL players who are accused/convicted of domestic violence without a little help. I guess there is no nuance in these other situations that result in an NFL player being suspended by Goodell.

The MMQB has talked to three of the outside experts called on by Goodell, and all were encouraged by the tougher policy on domestic violence laid out by Goodell: a six-game ban for a first offense (though with some wiggle room for “mitigating factors”), 

Roger says that there are mitigating factors. In fact, one of the mitigating factors in the Ray Rice case was "Did the bitch deserve it?" The answer to Goodell in this situation was "no, but kind of" while another mitigating factor was "Is the bitch cool with it now?" and the answer was "yes," so Goodell only gave Rice a two game suspension. Keep your girl in check, don't let her narc too hard, and you are cool with Goodell. There are other mitigating factors being considered by Goodell like,

-Was there a weapon involved? If so, the mitigating factor is "Did she deserve to be hit by the weapon based on her behavior?" Also, was the use of the weapon to discipline the woman for her behavior or just out of hatred for no reason? There is NEVER an excuse for hitting a woman without a good reason. Ever. Roger Goodell feels strongly about this. But if the woman wasn't acting right and causing a scene to embarrass the player in front of his boys, weapons without a blade or any other sharp edge (such as a broom, a baseball bat no longer than 30 inches, the handle end of a rake, and a belt) are appropriate to use and can be considered as fine with a mitigating circumstance involved. No weapons with a sharp end should ever be used, unless there is a mitigating factor, such as the woman just won't stop getting on the player's nerves. If the player has to ask more than twice for the woman to get off his nerves, then one strike (and one strike only, Roger Goodell feels strongly about this) with a sharp object is allowed, but there HAS to be a mitigating circumstance of the woman getting on the players nerves after being asked twice to stop.

-If the player's only act of domestic violence was hitting his significant/insignificant other, how big was the bruise's diameter? The penalties for bruise diameter goes like this...0 games for a bruise or bruises less than an inch in diameter, 2 games for a bruise or bruises between 1-3 inches in diameter, 6 games for a bruise or bruises bigger than 3 inches in diameter, and a year ban for a bruise or bruises larger than 5 inches in diameter...though if there is a mitigating factor, such as the bitch being cool with it or she was acting a fool and didn't know her place, then Goodell will lower the penalty down 1 inch for every mitigating factor.

-Did the player marry or continue a relationship with the person accusing him of domestic violence? If so, that player has kept his girl in check and should be rewarded for doing so. This is a mitigating circumstance.

-Is the girl a known trifler? Does she has a history of being a trifling-ass who always gets jealous and tries to cause problems where there are no problems, so the only solution is to put her back in her right place? Goodell will mitigate the suspension based on the woman being a known trifling-ass, but as long as the player can provide three witnesses attesting to the trifling nature of the woman.

and a year-to-lifetime ban for a repeat offender.

Unless there is a mitigating factor of course.

“The [domestic violence] policy is going to be tested quickly,” said Gandy, a veteran of the fight to end domestic abuse. “I think it is probably a good thing for a policy to be tested quickly, to see if the policy works the way it was meant to work. I am very sorry to hear this news, but it is a reminder how frequent and common domestic violence in this country is, unfortunately. I believe the commissioner will say, ‘This is our policy and we are going to stand behind it and implement it fairly.’

I'm not against a written policy, but I think it is hilarious that Roger Goodell can't trust himself to handle domestic violence punishments for NFL players without having a policy to tell him what to do. I sort of thought he was clueless after he punished Ray Rice for two games, but I know he's clueless now.

But the news about McDonald, a valuable starter on the San Francisco defensive front seven already coping with the nine-game suspension to its best pass-rusher, Aldon Smith, and knowing the team could be without rehabbing star linebacker NaVorro Bowman until midseason, could not come at a worse time. Being in trouble with the law is one thing. But coach Jim Harbaugh has been open with his players about seeing red over domestic violence.

This is as opposed to Bill Belichick, who doesn't care who his players hit, as long as they are being aggressive and show up on time for practice everyday. Belichick's policy about domestic violence is even less stringent than Goodell's "Is the bitch cool with it?" policy in the Ray Rice situation. Thank God Jim Harbaugh is tough on domestic violence. I wish other NFL coaches would follow suit.

If McDonald did indeed lay his hands on a woman in the tenor of these times, he has just made the biggest mistake of his career—and at just about the worst time possible.

Right, Peter. There is a time and place to hit a woman. When everyone is focused on the NFL not getting tough on players who hit women is not that time. Perhaps try to hit a woman during Super Bowl week or in another year or two. Just not now. It's simply bad domestic violence strategy.

Five days after the Rice decision, CNN led its morning newscast with a panel ripping the league over the light sentence. Five days. In his letter to owners last week, Goodell recognized the outcry, and the league’s role in society that he underestimated.

Goodell wrote: “The public response reinforced my belief that the NFL is held to a higher standard, and properly so.

But if your belief is that the NFL is held to a higher standard, how come you didn't uphold that belief when suspending Rice two games?

This would be an appropriate question to Goodell that he would probably not answer.

Much of the criticism stemmed from a fundamental recognition that the NFL is a leader, that we do stand for important values, and that we can project those values in ways that have a positive impact beyond professional football. We embrace this role and the responsibility that comes with it.”

Now. The NFL embraces it now. It took a public outcry and six experts on domestic violence to convince Goodell of the exact role and responsibility the NFL had, but this role has been embraced. Just don't criticize the officials. Roger Goodell knows how to embrace his role without any outside assistance in making sure the officials aren't criticized.

“When we talked,” said Gandy, “he said, basically, that he wanted to educate himself. He was genuine in wanting to understand the causes and wanting to know the best role for the league. At one point, we were talking about law enforcement, and he said to me, ‘Why isn’t everyone angry at the judge and the prosecutor in the Rice case? We actually did something, rather than nothing.’

Roger Goodell doesn't get it, just in case it wasn't clear. Yes Roger, you are being victimized by a mean society that holds a multi-billion dollar organization who thrive on fan interest and money to a higher standard than faceless and nameless prosecutors that have their salaries paid by citizen tax money. Who would expect the NFL, an organization that pretty much thinks it has the ability to do whatever the hell it wants to do, to be held to a higher standard than the court system that is a slave to the laws of the nation? Poor Roger Goodell.

One of the late additions to the letter Goodell sent to owners was trying to leave the league some flexibility on a hard-and-fast six-game ban for first offenses. Aggravating factors—assaulting a pregnant woman, for instance—could make the sanction harsher. But there also is no guarantee that the ban could be as long as six games.

But what if the player doesn't know the woman is pregnant? How can an NFL player be suspended longer for assaulting a pregnant woman if he didn't know that woman was pregnant? It's like Roger Goodell expects NFL players to do a total background check and physical on these women before they get down to the business of assaulting that woman. It's so inconvenient.

Read the letter: “Effective immediately, violations of the Personal Conduct Policy regarding assault, battery, domestic violence or sexual assault that involve physical force will be subject to a suspension without pay of six games for a first offense, with consideration given to mitigating factors, as well as a longer suspension when circumstances warrant. Among the circumstances that would merit a more severe penalty would be a prior incident before joining the NFL, or violence involving a weapon, choking, repeated striking, or when the act is committed against a pregnant woman or in the presence of a child.”

Notice how the letter about the new policy doesn't explain the mitigating factors, because they would seem pretty insensitive. That should be a hint, no? The NFL probably has no idea what a mitigating factor would be, but Roger Goodell does know he will sound like an asshole if he even tried to list one in an official NFL letter.

One size doesn’t fit all, and one size rarely fits all,” said Gandy. “We recognize there are greatly different levels of violence.”

Plus, Roger Goodell prefers it when a player can keep his girl in check and makes a commitment to marrying or continuing to date the woman that player assaulted. After all, how bad could it be if the woman stays with the person who assaulted her?

Kansas City GM John Dorsey did the right thing Sunday evening, putting the finishing touches on a four-year contract extension for Alex Smith that will pay him, on average, $15.1 million over the next five years.

Yes, "the right thing" is what Dorsey did. Poor Alex Smith was barely getting paid for his performance over the past few years.

The way I figure it, Smith is now the 11th-highest-paid quarterback in the NFL in terms of average salary in the existing contract.

That sounds about right. (snickers to himself)

So let’s answer the questions many of you have this morning about the deal and about the player.

Peter is about to pose questions to himself that "many of us" have and then answer these questions. Please remember, in an in-depth discussion about Ted Thompson was left out of MMQB so Peter could answer questions he posed to himself about Alex Smith. 

Q: Why did the Chiefs pay Smith now instead of waiting for him to get to the market after this season?

But do you want to enter a year-to-year deal with the leader of your team, telling him: We don’t really trust you, and we’re going to pay Dwayne Bowe and other key guys to our future but not you? Not a good business plan, and not a good business plan to risk Smith having a very good year and potentially hitting restricted free agency next March at age 30.

While I understand the implication of paying other players around Smith, is it really such a risk that Smith have a very good year and getting the chance to be a restricted free agent? If he has a really good year then he prices himself out of the Chiefs market, which isn't very good, but if Smith plays well then perhaps he would deserve the money he'll be offered for his performance. Maybe I'm focused too much on this being Alex Smith.

Q: Smith isn’t worth $15 million a year. Never has been. Why cave to him and give him that money?

A: Look at the market. Flacco got paid $5 million per year more than 13 months ago. Matt Ryan got paid $5.7-million per year more over a year ago too. Rivers signed his deal four years ago and his deal still slightly exceeds Smith’s.

But Alex Smith is not Matt Ryan and he is not Philip Rivers. But hey, it's the Chiefs money, so what should I care?

Folks, it’s okay to change your minds about a player. Alex Smith of 2014 isn’t Alex Smith of 2007. He’s a pretty good player. Not the best quarterback in football. Not in the top five, or the top 10 probably...He’s going to complete 64 percent or so of his throws, he’s going to limit mistakes, and he’s going to give Kansas City a good chance to win most Sundays.

Yeah, we'll see. I'm just glad the piece on Ted Thompson got bumped so Peter could ask himself questions he would answer about Alex Smith.

Most notable about cutdown weekend, when 704 men lost their jobs and/or were assigned to various practice squads: There were no shocks. A couple of surprises, but can you honestly say it was a stunner to see Michael Sam cut? Champ Bailey? Nate Burleson? No. Nothing really strange happened, but here’s what caught my eye:

Hey look, more of Peter King's personal thoughts in MMQB. It seems his readers can't get enough of what Peter thinks he thinks, or in this case, what Peter knows he thinks.

1. Found it interesting that the average age of the Denver Broncos’ final 53 is 25.8. I would have guessed 28.8.

I thought it was 27.9.

3. Let history show it was a player with the exact dimension of the 6-0, 193-pound Champ Bailey—6-0, 193-pound free-agent Brian Dixon of Northwest Missouri State—who essentially took Bailey’s job with the Saints. Dixon does have one edge: He’s healthier (Bailey had some plantar fasciitis in training camp), and he’s 12 years younger.

OTHER THAN BEING 12 YEARS YOUNGER AND NOT A HALL OF FAME CORNERBACK, THESE ARE ESSENTIALLY THE SAME TWO PLAYERS!

4. Green Bay never keeps three quarterbacks, but Scott Tolzien and Matt Flynn played well in the preseason and forced GM Ted Thompson’s hand. With Aaron Rodgers missing seven games last year, and with Thompson knowing Tolzien or Flynn likely would have been claimed elsewhere by a team needing a solid number two (or three), the Packers did the right thing and kept Rodgers, Tolzien and Flynn active.

Do you like how "the right thing" translates in MMQB to an NFL team doing what Peter King thinks that team should have done?

5. Fallout from the 2012 draft begins. Check out this ugly 32-pick span between No. 22 and 53:

53: Cincinnati—Devon Still was cut Saturday by the Bengals. Another wasted pick.

It's kind of cruel to call Devon Still a wasted pick when his daughter is fighting pediatric cancer.

Nothing like kicking a guy while he is down. Peter did apologize on Twitter...




First off, I find it hard to believe Peter was unaware of Still's situation with his daughter. I knew about it and I don't follow the Bengals that closely and even visited their training camp.

I realize Peter is too busy writing about Michael Sam, Johnny Manziel, coffee, how frustrating bad coffee can be and what he thinks about the Red Sox this season, but I find it hard to believe Peter didn't know about the situation with Devon Still's daughter. I think this goes to show how Peter is sometimes too concerned with things outside of the NFL, which is the sport he is paid to cover for a web site that covers the sport of football exclusively.

Second, this isn't out of character for Peter. He called Sean Taylor a bust not once, not twice, but three times in MMQB and his mailbags. The reason Taylor was a bust is because he was shot and killed, so he didn't exactly have a chance to live up to his draft status. So even if Peter knew about the situation around Still's daughter, based on how he referred to Sean Taylor repeatedly, I'm not sure he really is sorry for calling Still a "wasted pick."


9. Two of the great wheelers/dealers worked out a trade Saturday: Indy GM Ryan Grigson sending street free-agent cornerback Marcus Burley to Seattle GM John Schneider for a 2015 sixth-round pick.

Ryan Grigson is a wheeler/dealer, but I'm pretty sure there is still a question about the "great" part of the equation.

13. I have never seen a more misleading 5-0 preseason than the one the New York Giants just had. Eli Manning completed 49 percent of his throws, Odell Beckham (hamstring) wasn’t healthy all summer, and the passing game looked just as sickly as Beckham. Yikes. Giants have to win a scoring contest with Detroit a week from tonight. I don’t like their chances.

You and Mike Lupica don't like the Giants chances. Also, every preseason record is misleading because the starters play very little and coaches hold out important players if those players have any semblance of an injury. The entire preseason is misleading in many ways, why should a team's record be any different?

16. That’s the hot breath of Zach Mettenberger (47 of 68 in the preseason) you feel on your neck, Jake Locker.

Welp, look for the Josina Anderson report in a few hours about how none of his Titan teammates have taken a shower with Zach Mettenberger yet.

18. None of the Rams’ last five draft picks is on their 53-man roster, including Sam. That’s either a sign of a much better roster in St. Louis, or the sign of some bad drafting late.

Or it's not the sign of bad drafting and four of these picks were 7th round picks who are generally not guaranteed a roster spot anyway. It could be bad drafting, though from what Peter King has told his readers in the past, it is theoretically impossible for a Les Snead/Jeff Fisher-led team to draft poorly.

Patriots fans are used to the cold reality of NFL life. They’ve seen Bill Belichick trade Drew Bledsoe and Richard Seymour and cut Lawyer Milloy and let go Ty Law and Adam Vinatieri and Brandon Spikes in free agency, and so who would be surprised if next in line was the consistent Pro Bowl guard, Logan Mankins, who once played on a torn ACL for the good of the team?

I enjoy how media members like Peter King take the "Bill Belichick will cut anyone" narrative and run with it, like Belichick is colder than most NFL head coaches. It's not entirely true. Drew Bledsoe was traded after the Patriots had won a Super Bowl with Tom Brady as the starting quarterback and the Patriots did a great job replacing Vinatieri with Stephen Gostkowski. Belichick isn't the only cold person in the NFL who doesn't mind letting players go in free agency. My favorite team has released Jake Delhomme, Steve Smith, allowed Julius Peppers and Muhsin Muhammad go in free agency, and traded Kris Jenkins. They were all very popular players. I guess since it isn't the same GM/head coach who presided over all of these then the "he's so cold" narrative doesn't start, but the fact separate GM's/head coaches released these players does show Belichick isn't the only head coach willing to lose good players if he doesn't think they can produce. The narrative that Belichick is cold while other head coaches in the NFL aren't seems tired to me. The media wants to paint Belichick in one way and they will be damned if anything stops them. I know Belichick doesn't need anyone to protect him, but it's sort of unfair to him. He's just making decisions that he thinks are best for the Patriots, just like other GM's/head coaches would do for their team.

Interesting gambit by Belichick. He’s gambling the Patriots can make do on the offensive line and use the resources from the trade, offensive tight end Tim Wright and a fourth-round pick next year, to continue what the Patriots have been for 13 years—a near-playoff lock and consistent double-digit winner. To do that, Belichick has to be impervious to the grenades tossed when he gets rid of such top players.

Again, every head coach has to be impervious to grenades when it comes to making tough decisions. Belichick isn't cold or mean, he's just focused on his team's needs and how to meet those needs.

“Oh, Bill?’’ Mankins said. “I still have tons of respect for Bill. He’s an awesome coach. I loved playing for him. He was the best coach for me to have—he got a lot out of me.’’

Apparently the only one who doesn't understand the NFL is a business is Peter King. Tough decisions are made every year. Bill Belichick isn't an unfeeling robot, no matter how he is presented, he's willing to make hard decisions to meet the needs of his team. He's not the only head coach who will do this either.

It's an interesting move by Belichick and the Patriots, but it's all a business. Players stick around until they are no longer useful.

“Why would his teammates feel uncomfortable taking a shower with Michael Sam? Does he use Axe Garlic and Rotten Egg Body Wash?”
—Comedy Central’s Jon Stewart on his “Daily Show,” after ESPN’s Josina Anderson reported a St. Louis teammate “seems to think Michael Sam is waiting to kind of take a shower as not to make his teammates feel uncomfortable” in the locker room.

Ah yes, I look forward to the Ombudsman addressing this report another month from now when his next column is posted to ESPN.com.

Chip Kelly Wisdom of the Week

Thank God this is back. One week away was one week too long. I need more Chip Kelly coach-speak that Peter King thinks is brilliance.

Kelly, the Eagles’ coach, on handling the cutdown:

“When every guy that’s here is part of the 90-man roster, their lifelong dream is to be an NFL football player and to be the one that tells them that it’s not going to happen here is difficult. It’s something that is inevitable. You have to go from 90 to 75 and 75 to 53. It’s part of the job but it’s not a fun part of the job.

Pretty brilliant so far. The guys on the 90-man roster of an NFL team do in fact want to be on an NFL team. Glad that's cleared up. Also, a team has to get to 53 players by August 30, so unless 37 players are murdered or hidden on the roster somewhere then someone is going to have to tell these 37 players they will not make that specific NFL team.

But it’s always a difficult time when someone’s goal is to play in this league.

Again, the big news here is that these football players trying out to make the Philadelphia Eagles roster do in fact want to be NFL players.

We told those guys on day one: I hope that goal one for us is that you make this football team, but then goal two is that you get an opportunity to make another football team with the exposure that you get here. Hopefully we prepare you for that.

I'm really struggling to find the wisdom in these quotes. It seems, yet again, like general coach-speak to me.

“[Free agent defensive end] Alejandro Villanueva, I’d buy stock in him as a human being.

But you can, Chip, you can!

He’s going to be successful. I talked to him about the reasons we were cutting him loose. He said, ‘Coach, successful people have to make difficult decisions. You don’t have to explain anything to me.'”

If anyone finds anything in these quotes that qualifies as wisdom, please give me a heads up. I can't seem to find anything that doesn't seem like coach-speak or just general comments from a head coach about how hard cuts to get to the 53-man limit can be.

Mr. Starwood Preferred Member Travel Note of the Week

Hunkered down last week and did some writing for 1.5 days in one of the prettiest places I’d never seen: the coast of Maine 90 minutes north of Portland, on the Pemaquid Peninsula. Thanks to the Bradley Inn there for a swell time, and to the Atlantic Ocean for being so beautiful,

THANK YOU ATLANTIC OCEAN FOR BEING SO BEAUTIFUL! YOU MAY TASTE LIKE SHIT WHEN PUT IN PETER'S COFFEE, BUT YOUR SALTY WATER IS A SWEET SALVE TO WHAT AILS PETER WHEN THE BARISTA AT STARBUCKS SPELLS HIS NAME WRONG ON THE CUP CARRYING HIS DELICIOUS LATTE!



For those who don’t know what Sam means about Sam, NFL parlance in a 4-3 defense for the linebackers is Mike for the middle linebacker, Will for the weakside outside linebacker, and Sam for the strongside outside linebacker.

Yeah, we got it Peter. Glad you explained it though.

Should I be thankful that Peter didn't tell his readers "to go Google" to see what this means?



A “mike flag” is the identifying network band around the microphone when a correspondent is interviewing a player. And I don’t think I have ever seen an ESPN crew not use ESPN identification when talking to someone on camera.

It would only be better if it were called a Sam or Will flag.

Ten Things I Think I Think

1. I think Michael Sam being waived by the Rams came down to four factors:

I think it is funny that Michael Sam wants to be treated like any other 7th round draft pick and the media will simply not allow this to happen. Peter has to break down the four factors that caused Sam to be cut. Perhaps there is one reason the Rams cut Sam. They have other talent on the 53-man roster they would like to keep and Sam can't fit into what the Rams want to do at the defensive end position.

He was outplayed in camp and in preseason games—though not in a rout—by a more versatile player, undrafted free-agent Ethan Westbrooks, who the Rams think can play at defensive end or defensive tackle. Sam was strictly a defensive end.

All four incumbent defensive ends who made the team—Robert Quinn, Chris Long, William Hayes and Eugene Sims—plus Westbrooks, who showed better pass-rush ability in training camp and games, are signed at least through the end of the 2015 season.

Sam was on just one special team, kick coverage. He wasn’t valuable in the kicking game.

So allow me to get this straight...many of the same factors that caused Michael Sam to fall to the 7th round (he's not versatile, scouts question whether he could provide consistent production, he has no experience outside of playing defensive end and he doesn't play special teams) are the reason he didn't make the Rams' roster? Is that what Peter is telling us? What a shock!

2. I think NFL teams are seeing ghosts on Michael Sam, who, as of midnight Sunday, was still on the street looking for a practice squad to join. If a team plays a 3-4, as many do, he’s not a fit. But Sam is a 257-pound defensive end in a 4-3 system who has a chance to create a little havoc and a chance—a chance, I say, not a sure thing—to be a growth stock for teams. But I talked to three team architects over the weekend. They’re concerned about the circus coming to town with the first openly gay player trying to make an NFL roster. What circus, exactly?

The circus that involves a sportswriter like yourself talking about a 7th round pick at length, listing four reasons that 7th round pick didn't make the 53-man roster, and undoubtedly every move that team makes in regard to the player being analyzed seven different ways. I guess it's with no sense of irony that Peter asks "What circus, exactly?" as he provides more coverage of Sam being released than any 7th round pick has ever received before.

A little ESPN story about shower habits? That’s been the big controversy of the last four months with Sam. He’s had two press conferences, peaceful and uneventful ones, and met the press briefly after each of the St. Louis preseason games, as any player would be subject to doing. And that has created exactly zero problems for the Rams.

It has created zero problems for the Rams, but it has kept the Rams in the media spotlight regarding whether they will keep a guy who was going to probably not even be active on Sundays if he even made the team. Peter has talked about Sam at least every other week in MMQB. There's no controversy, but for Peter to act like it's not a big deal is disingenuous. Peter is one of many sportswriters who are like, "Guys, this is a big deal, but it's totally not a big deal. We are going to cover this Michael Sam story from every possible angle, then wonder why NFL teams worry a 7th round pick is getting too much attention."

4. I think the 49ers set a dangerous precedent for their team in a few ways Sunday, bringing back guard Alex Boone from his summer-long camp holdout, as Adam Schefter reported. One, they chose to not collect his fines for going AWOL from camp despite having two years left on his contract. Two, they told him they wouldn’t put the franchise tag on him when his contract expires after the 2015 season. Three, according to Pro Football Talk, the club raised his pay over the next two seasons from $3.7 million to $6 million total. With the first team offense looking offensive in Weeks 2 and 3 of the preseason, GM Trent Baalke obviously swallowed hard and did some objectionable things (for him) in bowing to Boone.

Oh, so the 49ers didn't "do the right thing" and pay Alex Boone? They "did some objectionable things" by paying him. Again, it's funny how "the right thing" and "the objectionable thing" are how Peter is referring to decisions NFL teams make that he either agrees with or doesn't agree with.

So if Alex Smith had held out of Chiefs camp would it have then been "objectionable" for John Dorsey to give him a new contract? Peter has already said it made sense to give Smith a new contract because other important members of the Chiefs team got one, so if Smith held out for the money that Peter rightfully seems to think Smith should get, would the decision to pay Smith be "objectionable"? It's pretty clear the 49ers need offensive line help, so bringing Alex Boone back makes sense.

5. I think Tom Coughlin, who turned 68 Sunday, had this reaction when I told him in camp he was one win from passing Paul Brown and two from passing Joe Gibbs on the all-time NFL victories list: “Wow. Really?” Then he said that was nice. And that was all. But I do know this: Coughlin loves pro football history, and whatever happens this season with the Giants, he has no interest in retiring anytime soon. Which begs the question about what happens to Coughlin if the Giants have a really bad year. From watching them this summer, it’s possible. I think you have to wait to see the circumstances first. But club president and CEO John Mara does not take kindly to mediocrity. He was very prickly after last year’s 7-9 season, and there’s no question he liked the fact that Coughlin wanted to shake up his coaching staff. But if the offense is awful and Eli Manning struggles, I don’t know if Mara will say he wants back Coughlin and GM Jerry Reese,

That's great, but does this mean Peter doesn't think the Giants will win two games this upcoming season? I understand Tom Coughlin doesn't want to stop coaching, but if the Giants have a really bad year does Peter think Coughlin won't pass Gibbs and Brown? If this isn't what he believes, then why tie in how many games Coughlin has to win to have a chance to pass Joe Gibbs and Paul Brown with Coughlin possibly be fired after the 2014 season if the Giants play poorly again?

6. I think the league is not going to press a tampering case against Jerry Jones for his remarks in the great ESPN profile of him about Adrian Peterson. “Tipsy and waiving his arms,’’ Jones, according to the story, got handed a cell phone with Peterson on it after a George Strait concert at the Cowboys’ stadium, and seemed to be speaking with Peterson about making him a Cowboy someday. Talking to a couple of people with knowledge of the league’s view of the story, I didn’t sense much interest in the league pursuing anything against Jones when he was seriously into the Johnnie Walker Blue Label near midnight.

Oh, so it isn't tampering if the person doing the tampering is drunk? I understand. So I guess this means NFL GM's can get drunk (with witnesses attesting to this GM's drunken state) and then start dialing players under contract with other teams stating the interest that GM has in the player? Sounds great.

Reading the passage, I wonder how much of the conversation with Peterson he remembers. Now, that isn’t to say he should be talking to any employee of another team about anything other than having a nice day. And I’m sure he’ll get a reminder of that from someone in the league office. But it doesn’t sound like the league’s interested in whacking Jones for it.

So is this a mitigating circumstance for tampering? Maybe the NFL's reluctance in whacking Jones for this could have something to do with the head of NFL officiating getting off a party bus with Stephen Jones, but that was no big deal either I guess. That's my conspiracy theory of the day. Dean Blandino downplayed his being on the bus, but it would be awkward if Stephen or Jerry Jones could clarify what happened on the bus or embarrassed the NFL publicly in any way.

Tampering while being drunk still sounds like tampering to me. The excuse that an NFL owner was just blackout drunk doesn't seem like a very good excuse either.

9. I think Texas A&M coach Kevin Sumlin won’t need to send out his résumé when he goes in search of an NFL head-coaching job. Teams will be drooling to get him. Maybe not quite Chip Kelly-style drooling, but it could be close if his team keeps playing the way it did in routing South Carolina the other night, putting up 52 against the ninth-ranked team in the country, on the road, with a new quarterback.

If I'm an NFL team, I'm impressed by Kevin Sumlin, but I'm also wondering when he will put a defense worth a shit out on the field. I'm guessing if Jason Garrett gets fired, then Jerry Jones is going to call Kevin Sumlin. It seems like a Jerry Jones-type move.

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

d. The Red Sox traded Kelly Johnson to Baltimore on Saturday in a deal that will have absolutely no effect on either team. But the upshot’s interesting. Johnson’s now been on every team in the AL East over the last two 23 months.

This is just a depressing note for AL East teams.

e. Story of the Week (and many other weeks): Don Van Natta Jr.’s insightful profile of Dallas owner Jerry Jones. “I get madder every day about missin’ him,” Jones told Van Natta, “him” being Johnny Manziel in the NFL Draft. “I was the only guy [in the organization] who wanted him.”

Sometimes I wish the Cowboys would just listen to every single personnel move Jerry Jones wants made, just to see what would happen. I want Jones to have no other advice when deciding to make a move and having control to make any trade, draft pick or free agent signing he wanted to.

g. Coffeenerdness: There is no better drip coffee in the universe, at least for me, than the Italian Roast at Starbucks. That’s an exclamation point driven home to me every morning with a jarring cup.

In your face Marriott! Your free drip coffee isn't as good as coffee that Peter pays for. Also, "every morning with a jarring cup"? Let's settle down a bit. It's coffee.

i. Happy Labor Day, everyone. I’m going to celebrate this great day by working.

Way to play the victim who has to work on Labor Day. I work as well. I'll remember Peter worked Labor Day when he takes a month vacation in July.

The Adieu Haiku

Three days till kickoff.
NFL’s 95th year
will be offensive.


But not as offensive as a haiku ending a football column. 

Tuesday, June 17, 2014

0 comments Ross Tucker Says Alex Smith Deserves Tony Romo/Jay Cutler Money Because of Team Performance, But Not Because of Team Performance

I generally try my best to fair. I really do. Ross Tucker writes pretty well for an ex-athlete and generally does a good job making the point he wants to make. That's me being fair. He is also the guy who wrote a column stating the Lions should just not draft anyone, rather than draft Matthew Stafford and pay him what the going price for a quarterback drafted in #1 overall in 2009 was. So there's that. I mean, not drafting anyone at #1 overall was his solution. So he has a history of some lunacy. Now Ross Tucker has written an article saying Alex Smith "deserves" Tony Romo and Jay Cutler money, but not because of his team's performance, but mostly because of his team's performance.

I have a problem with the word "deserve" being used in sports. The Cavs supposedly didn't "deserve" the #1 overall pick in the 2014 NBA Draft because they have drafted #1 overall twice recently, a guy like Alex Smith who was overpaid for most his career "deserves" money like Romo and Cutler, and it goes on. I think in the realm of sports what a team/player "deserves" is over-used. It's all relative I guess, but does Alex Smith "deserve" a big contract or does the fact he didn't always live up to his previous 6 year $49.5 million contract mean he should be underpaid compared to other quarterbacks who are probably a little overpaid? What does "deserves" really mean anyway?

After all, is the fact Romo and Cutler got Romo and Cutler money a reflection on their ability or the fact the quarterback market usually errs on the side of overpaying for a quality quarterback? The NFL is a QB-driven league, so teams will overpay to keep a quality quarterback around. This leads to situations where quarterbacks like Alex Smith who is more middle-of-the-road wants money like quarterbacks who are a tier above him have received. So Ross Tucker doesn't ask if Cutler/Romo's contract is a reflection of the quarterback market more than it is a reflection of Alex Smith's talent compared to Romo and Cutler. So maybe Alex Smith doesn't deserve as much money as Cutler and Romo because they didn't deserve that amount of money originally. And yes, I realize the market sets what each player is worth, but Cutler nor Romo ever hit the market as a free agent. I'm rambling and hopefully you get my semi-coherent point.

Speaking of semi-coherent, let's read about Ross Tucker using team performance as his reason for why Alex Smith should get paid like Cutler and Romo, while saying he doesn't want to use team performance as to why Alex Smith should be paid like Cutler and Romo.

Jay Cutler, Tony Romo and Alex Smith.
Which name doesn't belong?

I don't know the category, so it's impossible to answer this question. If the category is "Quarterbacks who haven't won a Super Bowl" then they all belong. If the category is "quarterbacks who are first round picks" then Tony Romo doesn't belong.

My guess is that we are thinking of the same player, but I'm fairly confident that our reasoning is different.
Only one of those three NFL quarterbacks turned 30 years old this month. The other two are 31 and 34.

Only one of those quarterbacks hasn't thrown for 4000 yards in a season. Only one of these quarterbacks has thrown 20 touchdown passes in a season once. I can cherry-pick numbers too!

Only one has won 75 percent of their regular season starts over the last three years. The other two are not even close to winning at that high of a clip.
Only one has helped lead his team to the postseason each of the last three seasons. The other two have not gotten their team into the postseason even once over the same stretch.

Only one quarterback has taken his team to the NFC Championship Game once and then had his backup take that team to the Super Bowl and NFC Championship Game over the following two seasons. To say Alex Smith "led" his team to the postseason in 2012 is a bit misleading. He started the first nine games and then took one snap the rest of the season. Alex Smith's 6-2 record is impressive, but I think it's fair to say Colin Kaepernick is who led the 49ers to the postseason in 2012. Whatever though, I won't let facts get in the way of Ross Tucker's opinion.

Only one of these quarterbacks has had to quarterback two different teams during the previous three years.

Probably because the other two quarterbacks have only played for one team over the previous three years. It's kind of difficult to lead a team you don't quarterback to the playoffs isn't it?

I've heard a lot of criticism of Tony Romo, but the fact he hasn't led another team besides the Cowboys to the playoffs in the last three years is completely new criticism. It's clear at this point that Ross Tucker is cherry-picking his information and he's only cherry-picking team-related information at that.

It's a bit of an unfair comparison isn't it? Alex Smith is the only quarterback of these three who has played for two teams over the last three years. What did Ross Tucker expect?

Only one of them makes less than $10 million per year. The other two are in the $18M per season range.

I can't believe Alex Smith only gets paid $10 million per year! Actually, Tony Romo's cap hit for 2014 is $11.7 million, Alex Smith's cap hit is $8 million, and Cutler's is $18.5 million. The average for Romo and Cutler are $18 million, but I think Ross Tucker understands the cap hit is what really counts when comparing quarterbacks to each other in terms of money.

So what's my point? There are several reports out there that Smith wants to be paid like Romo and Cutler. Some people think that is crazy.

I don't think it's crazy to ask to get paid like Cutler or Romo. I think it would be crazy if the Chiefs paid Smith like Cutler or Romo. Not because Smith may not relatively deserve similar money if taken in terms of his team's performance, but because I believe Smith is more easily replaceable than both Cutler and Romo are. Smith seems to take care of the football and his teams win games, but this doesn't mean he should paid on-par with quarterbacks like Romo and Cutler. In terms of individual achievement, both Romo and Cutler have performed at a higher level individually.

I don't.

Clearly you don't. Of course Ross Tucker also doesn't seem to be able to acknowledge that the Cowboys seem to have some buyer's remorse at signing Romo to that contract, so this could be an indication Smith may deserve to be paid like Romo, but the Chiefs could be smart not to care what Smith deserves.

What would you be asking for at this point if you were Smith?

I would ask for as much money as I thought the Chiefs might give me. If I were an impartial football columnist then I would not look at it from Smith's point of view as to whether Smith deserves what he's asking for. Smith is entitled to ask for as much money as Cutler and Romo, but that really doesn't mean he should be paid that much.

I'm not one of those people who looks only at a quarterback's won/loss record,

Actually, yes you are the exact one of those people who looks only at a quarterback's won/loss record. From earlier in this column:

Only one has won 75 percent of their regular season starts over the last three years. The other two are not even close to winning at that high of a clip.Only one has helped lead his team to the postseason each of the last three seasons. The other two have not gotten their team into the postseason even once over the same stretch.

That same quarterback has not only helped get his team to the playoffs the last three years, but he's won a playoff game and played extremely well in two separate playoff games during that time.
Only one of these quarterbacks has had to quarterback two different teams during the previous three years.

And the conclusion Ross Tucker reached prior to saying he's "not one of those people who looks only at a quarterback's won/loss record:"

So what's my point? There are several reports out there that Smith wants to be paid like Romo and Cutler. Some people think that is crazy. 
I don't.

So whether he wants to be or not, he is one of those people.

because there are a lot of factors that go into that and it would be foolish to look only at that one thing. Still, it would be equally foolish to completely dismiss it.

But you...you...just made a case...the entire case you made...you only mentioned...the team performance thing is tied into the win/loss record...that's all you made mention of...the conclusion that Smith should get paid like Romo and Cutler...win/loss is all you looked at when making the case. You see, right?

In this column Ross Tucker will make zero mention of Alex Smith's individual performance and compare it to Romo or Cutler's individual performance. Nothing. Nada. Zilch. None. Zero. That's how many times Ross Tucker will compare the individual statistics of Jay Cutler and Tony Romo to Alex Smith. His entire case for why Alex Smith should get paid like Romo and Cutler is based on win/loss record of Smith's teams compared to Romo and Cutler's team. That's it. Then he tries to act like he's not someone who bases the entire conclusion on win/loss record.

Winning the game, after all, is the goal.  You know that, right?

I do know that. I also know that Colin Kaepernick took the 49ers to the Super Bowl and the NFC Championship Game over the last two seasons. This isn't a Brady/Cassel case where one quarterback played well, but didn't match the elite performance of his predecessor, Kaepernick has performed as well and better than Smith did in terms of team performance (since that seems to be what Tucker cares so much about).

Make the plays that help your team, or maybe more importantly, don't make the plays that prevent your team from winning.

Yes, this is what being a quarterback is all about. I won't state this as being untrue. Quarterbacks who don't make the plays that prevent their team from winning are seen as game managers and generally are also seen as more replaceable than quarterbacks like Cutler and Romo. Fair or not, NFL teams tend not to give $100 million to quarterbacks who just try to avoid making mistakes.

Plus, it's not like other statistics that people look at are only quarterback measurements. Touchdown to interception ratio, yards per attempt and completion percentage, for instance, can all be products, at least in part, of scheme, coaching philosophy, and talent surrounding the quarterback on both sides of the ball.

Fair point, but what is a more indicative product of a team's overall talent and coaching talent than that team's win-loss record? Quarterback measurements are somewhat a product of the talent around that quarterback, but the record of that quarterback's team is entirely indicative of the team's overall talent. Ross Tucker makes a valid point, but fails to understand this same point can be used to dismiss Alex Smith's claim to deserving as much money as Cutler and Romo. It's entirely possible Smith's appearances in the playoffs and decent performance at quarterback are the result of coaching philosophy and scheme, just like Cutler and Romo's lack of playoff appearances in the last three years are a result of these factors. It goes both ways.

Really, what's the best argument for why Smith is not worth Romo/Cutler money? That he's not as physically talented as those two?

The best argument for why Smith is worth Romo/Cutler money is based the assumption that Cutler and Romo are worth the money they are paid. But yes, the best argument for why Smith isn't worth Romo/Cutler money is because in terms of individual performance. Smith doesn't put up the numbers that Romo and Cutler put up. Quarterbacks are often paid on their individual performance and Smith's individual performance isn't on par with Romo and Cutler's individual performance.

Well, neither is Peyton Manning or Tom Brady, so where does that leave us? 

Ross Tucker can't really believe this. Tom Brady and Peyton Manning aren't physically talented, but between Brady and Manning they have had one season where they didn't throw for more yards than Smith's career high for passing yardage in a season. There have been two seasons where Manning/Brady didn't throw for more touchdowns in a season than Alex Smith's career high in a season at 23.

It's not about Brady or Manning not being physically talented, it is about the performance of the quarterback overall. Brady/Manning are not athletic, and more importantly, they simply blow away Alex Smith's individual statistics. It's not even close. You know what else? In fact, Alex Smith is more athletic than both Jay Cutler and Tony Romo, so Ross Tucker is not only wrong in comparing Smith to Manning/Brady but he is also wrong that Smith isn't more physically talented than Cutler/Romo. That's not true.

Or perhaps the argument is that Smith hasn't been asked to carry as much of the load as the other two. There probably is some truth to that, but whose fault is that?

Whose fault is it that his head coach doesn't have the trust in him to carry a larger load? Well, in terms of fault I would say that's the quarterback's fault for not instilling enough confidence that he can get the job done with a heavier load. 

All a quarterback can do is carry out the coaching staff's game plan to the best of his ability and Smith has done that at an extremely high level for three straight seasons.

And yet another irrelevant comment. It doesn't matter if Smith has carried out the game plan or not. What's being questioned is whether Smith deserves the same amount of money as Romo and Cutler when his individual performance isn't as impressive and he carries less of a load than Romo and Cutler. Based on this, he does not deserve as much money as them because he isn't as valuable to his team as Romo and Cutler may be.

It’s not as if Smith hasn't produced at all. He threw 23 touchdowns and only seven interceptions in 15 games last year with a new team in a new offense while winning 11 of those contests.

That's great. It in no way means he deserves to be paid like Tony Romo, who threw 31 touchdowns and only 10 interceptions. Jay Cutler threw 19 touchdowns and 12 interceptions in 11 games. A guy whose career high of 23 touchdown passes doesn't necessarily deserve a contract in excess of $100 million. There's a big gap between saying "it's not like he hasn't produced at all" and that quarterback deserving to be one of the highest paid quarterbacks in the NFL.

And it's not like he's throwing to the same caliber of weapons that Romo and Cutler have at their disposal. Frankly, it's not even close.

And neither Cutler or Romo had the defense that Smith had last year in Kansas City. In fact, it's not even close. The Chiefs defense gave up 19.1 points per game, while the Bears and Cowboys defenses gave up 29.9 and 27.0 points per game respectively. So there's that little bit of information that Ross Tucker conveniently ignores. Romo and Cutler were asked to score almost 10 more points per game to win a game than Smith was asked to score. Think that plays a part in each quarterback's win-loss record last year?

Smith thinks he deserves what those guys make and I don't blame him.
Not one bit.

You don't have to blame Smith, but it doesn't make right. I do enjoy how Ross Tucker used the team-achievement approach to stating Smith is on-par with Romo and Cutler while saying that he doesn't only look at a quarterback's win-loss record. I enjoy it, because well, that's the entire basis for his argument that Smith should be paid like Cutler and Romo were paid.

Thursday, October 31, 2013

4 comments Gregg Easterbrook Says It Is Okay to Be Wrong, Which Means Gregg Easterbrook is Very, Very, Very Okay

Gregg Easterbrook tried to figure out what was wrong with Peyton Manning last week in TMQ and came to the conclusion he just doesn't play well in big games nor in the playoffs. Of course other great quarterbacks don't play well in the playoffs too, but Peyton is different from them because Gregg wants Peyton to be different from them. Gregg also criticized television shows for lack of accuracy, of course, and rambled about politics/bodyguards for politicians/etc. This week Gregg wants to know if the Chiefs are for real, talks about the bird population and and admits he was wrong but doesn't feel he should change his behavior or stop making stupid predictions like writing "game over" in a notebook.

They've gone from worst to first. Kansas City, laughingstock of 2012, is the sole undefeated remaining in 2013. But are the Chiefs for real?

I don't know. It's almost like the rest of the NFL season will determine the answer to this question. By the way, any followup on the 49ers and how the read-option isn't working anymore? I'm just wondering since it's been over a month since Gregg said air was leaking from the 49ers balloon and the 49ers haven't lost a game since that time.

Stretching back to his time in San Francisco, quarterback Alex Smith hasn't lost a game as the starter in more than a year. There is athletic talent aplenty, including five Chiefs elected to the 2012 Pro Bowl (and a sixth added later), and Eric Fisher, the No. 1 choice of the 2013 draft.

Yeah, but highly drafted players like Alex Smith and Eric Fisher are just glory boys who only care about themselves, right? So how can they be helping the Chiefs team win games? How about the talent aplenty on the roster, including the six Chiefs that made the Pro Bowl? Here are their draft positions...

Jamaal Charles- 3rd round
Tamba Hali- 1st round
Justin Houston- 3rd round
Derrick Johnson- 1st round
Eric Berry- 1st round
Dustin Colquitt- 3rd round

So the next time Gregg starts criticizing first round draft picks or highly-drafted glory boys as compared to undrafted players, just remember he thinks the Chiefs and their 2013 Pro Bowl representatives have talent aplenty, and no 2013 AFC Pro Bowl representative of the Chiefs was drafted later than the 3rd round.

These are full-season results: the Chiefs have six more victories after a half-season. They are sure to keep climbing.

But -- and you've already guessed a "but" was coming.

Well, of course. Gregg has to play both sides of this issue so that way he can later quote himself as being right no matter whether the Chiefs win 12 games or don't win another game. Being right is the most important thing.

The offensive line has allowed 24 sacks, close to the league-worst 32 allowed by Miami. Smith has a pedestrian 82.1 quarterback rating, lower than Jake Locker or the benched Michel Vick.

Apparently Michel Vick is the French version of the Eagles quarterback Michael Vick. 

But factor out the Chiefs, and Kansas City opponents are a combined 20-33. Kansas City victories have been posted against Jacksonville, Dallas, Philadelphia, Jersey/A, Houston, Oakland, Cleveland -- all among the league's problem children.

Gregg has got this being played both ways very well. If the Chiefs struggle in the second half of the season he can say it is because of their schedule, and he was right, or if the Chiefs don't struggle Gregg can point out what a great quarterback Alex Smith is and note how Gregg stated Smith was the best acquisition of the offseason, and he was right.

The Chiefs go home-and-home versus the Broncos twice in three weeks. After then, we will know whether Kansas City is for real -- or is the Baylor of the NFL.

Kansas City as the Baylor of the NFL really doesn't make a ton of sense. Baylor is being accused of dominating inferior competition, while the Chiefs are undefeated (like Baylor) but they aren't dominating inferior competition, but are merely winning games against teams that aren't very good. So the comparison really falters for me because the Chiefs aren't dominating the competition like Baylor has done for the most part.

In an attempt to cope with the outpouring of stats from the Mile High City, TMQ debuts Denver's Own Personal Stats of the Week. Here is the killer stat line: the Broncos are 7-1, have outscored opponents by 125 points, and if the season ended today, would be a wild-card team.

There's a reason the season doesn't end today. Of course the Broncos would be a wild-card team because of the "Peyton Paradox" where Manning is capable of winning 12 games in a season but he just can't win the "big" games that Gregg has cherry-picked as being "big" games in order to prove his point that there is such a thing as the "Peyton Paradox."

In Philadelphia's last two outings, the Eagles' offense has scored a mere three points, while punting 15 times and committing six turnovers. Quarterback injuries have been a problem -- but Kelly's offense exposes the quarterback to injures, which many NFL veterans warned the incoming Eagles coach about.

To be fair to Chip Kelly, Mike Vick (or Michel Vick, as he's known to Gregg) is usually injured and neither Matt Barkley nor Nick Foles seem like they are capable NFL starters or capable of running Kelly's offense. So Kelly's offense has failed in the NFL so far, but I'm going to reserve some judgment considering this is Kelly's first season in the NFL and he may not have the personnel he wants to run the offense effectively.

Stats of the Week No. 3: Carolina outscored its last three opponents by 96-38.

Carolina's last three opponents are 4-18 on the season. They are beating up on inferior opponents.

Stats of the Week No. 10: The Giants are 2-6, have committed 25 turnovers, and are two games out of first.

Much like how many points the Broncos have scored, how many turnovers the Giants have committed isn't relevant to how many games out of first they are. Instead, this number is relevant to the number of games the Giants have won and how far out of first the Giants are shows us how good the rest of the NFC East is.

Miami general manager Jeff Ireland's offseason decision to wave goodbye to left tackle Jake Long looks worse all the time -- Miami allowed six sacks at New England, and is last in the NFL in sacks allowed.

Doesn't Gregg mean "highly-drafted glory boy, unwanted" #1 overall draft pick Jake Long?

Ireland's decision to wave goodbye to  Reggie Bush isn't exactly looking genius-class, either. 

Doesn't Gregg mean "highly-drafted glory boy, unwanted" #2 overall draft pick Reggie Bush?

As for the 'Boys -- they continue to play as if uncoached. Early in the contest, Calvin Johnson took a routine short slant pass 87 yards as Dallas safety Barry Church air-tackled and other members of the Cowboys secondary jogged.

It also helps that a Lions player seemed to hold a Cowboys player on this play which didn't help the Cowboys chance of catching Calvin Johnson.

Then Detroit scored on fourth-and-goal from the Dallas 2 when Johnson ran the same slant on the same side of the field, with the 'Boys secondary basically just watching him. Sour performance.

It's the two-yard line. If Johnson runs a slant then there isn't much time for the Cowboys secondary to do anything but watch him catch the touchdown pass. Once the Cowboys cornerback wasn't able to prevent Johnson from catching the football, the rest of the Cowboys secondary didn't have time to react before Johnson scored a touchdown from two yards out. 

Now it's Dallas leading 27-24 with 2:38 remaining, Detroit at that point holding two timeouts, the 'Boys facing third-and-12 on their 23. A first down obviously would be nice, but an incompletion would stop the clock -- better to rush and force Detroit to spend a timeout. Instead Dallas coaches radio in a pass attempt; incompletion, the clock stops. Detroit would score the winning touchdown with 12 ticks showing. Had Dallas simply run up the middle for no gain at 2:38, the Cowboys likely would have won the game.

So it's "likely" the Cowboys would have won the game in this situation? The Lions would not have called timeout and then possibly adjusted their play-calling on the next drive and then gone the length of the field for a game-tying field or a game-winning touchdown? Gregg can't seem to understand when you change one variable in a situation then another variable will change also. It's entirely possible if the Cowboys had run the ball here, then Detroit would have called timeout and adjusted their play-calling on the following drive to account for having one timeout instead of two timeouts.

Lions stuck back on their 37, out of timeouts, needing a touchdown. Where oh where might the pass go? Maybe up the field! Flanker Kris Durham runs a basic up pattern and blows past corner Orlando Scandrick. Stafford looks right toward Calvin Johnson, whom you may have heard of, then throws back left to Durham for a 40-yard gain, the drive's big play. Not only was Scandrick making the high school mistake of looking into the backfield trying to guess the play, rather than just cover his man,

So Scandrick wasn't covering his man like he was supposed to do as dictated by the defensive play-call? That's Gregg's story in the beginning of this sentence.

but defensive coordinator Monte Kiffin appeared to have called a Cover 2 that required the corners to watch for short passes, when the play absolutely had to go up the field. 

So Monte Kiffin called a defensive play that required the corners to play the short routes? That's Gregg's new story at the end of this sentence. So either Scandrick let Durham by him because he was looking in the backfield or because that's what the defensive play-call required of him. It can't be both. So which is it, Gregg?

Perhaps Scandrick wasn't really looking in the backfield trying to guess the play (which is Gregg's standard reasoning given for why a cornerback lets his man behind him, regardless of whether it was true or not) and it was the defensive play-call that required Scandrick to cover the short routes. I realize Gregg has no clue that a defensive player must follow the defensive play-call made and can't simply choose to do whatever he wants on the field, but Gregg's criticism of Scandrick for not following Durham and allowing Durham behind him means Gregg expected Scandrick to completely ignore the defensive play-call and just do whatever the hell he wanted to do while on defense.

So maybe Scandrick wasn't making a mistake and was simply executing the defensive play-call, which is his job. Coaches tend to not look favorably on a cornerback who ignores the play-call.

When Detroit reached the 1 and was about to snap, Dallas could have called time then. Instead Dallas never stopped to regroup: presumably the unused timeouts can be donated to charity.

This joke was somewhat clever the first time Gregg said it and has gotten progressively less and less clever each time he says it, to the point now it's irritating me.

Fake blood note: Brad Pitt's "World War Z" was originally marketed as sci-fi. The Wall Street Journal reports that Paramount is now calling "World War Z" a "horror film," because that definition makes it the highest-grossing movie in a genre.

As usual, Gregg is misleading his readers here. "World War Z" wasn't marketed as a science-fiction film only. It was marketed as a zombie film that crosses several genres. Roger Ebert's old site said the film was in the genres "science fiction," "horror," "action," "drama," and "thriller." If you notice, Rotten Tomatoes reviewers can't decide on a genre for the film either. It's called a "zombie movie" and an "action-thriller." So perhaps the definition of "horror" makes it the highest-grossing movie for marketing purposes, but "World War Z" was never marketed as just a "science fiction" film.

Half a century ago, Rachel Carson's famed book "Silent Spring" predicted the extinction of North American bird life -- thus a silent spring, without chirping. Now the New York Times warns the ever-rising North American bird population is an increasing hazard to aviation.

In your face, Rachel Carson you stupid hippie whore! Gregg Easterbrook just completely owned you. Joke is on you for predicting something fifty years ago that didn't come true.

Carson's predictions were wrong because her work helped inspire environmental reforms that prevented the calamity she foresaw.

Which was probably her intent in writing "Silent Spring," so I'm not sure if that makes Rachel Carson wrong or just really, really right.

Declining toxins are probably a reason cancer deaths are down. Greenhouse gas emissions continue unabated, but most other environmental indicators -- declining smog and acid rain, improving water quality and forest health -- have been positive for decades. Regardless, voters tell pollsters they think the environment is getting worse. If misconceptions rule on issues like bird populations and air quality, where the evidence is all around us, how will the nation ever to come to grips with abstractions like the federal debt?

That's a great question. If Gregg Easterbrook questions why Orlando Scandrick didn't cover Calvin Johnson running deep when there is evidence that wasn't what the play-call called for him to do, how will Gregg ever understand abstractions like NFL teams run zone and man defenses?

The Golden Tate knucklehead move will be universally mocked -- if you haven't mocked Tate yet, hurry to do so before all the slots are taken. TMQ will just ask: How often has anyone on a Super Bowl-caliber team done anything comparable?

You mean other than Cowboys defensive lineman Leon Lett holding the ball out and celebrating before he scored a touchdown during the Super Bowl, the same Super Bowl the Cowboys went on to easily win? Never. This has never happened before on a Super Bowl-caliber team.

The Rams -- how can anyone take seriously an NFL team that has reached the halfway point of the season and not scored a rushing touchdown?

As a reminder, Peter King was too focused on the Rams awesome and exciting draft to bother being worried about the Rams ability to protect their quarterback, their talent at the safety positions and the fact they had no proven running backs on the roster to help keep the pressure off Sam Bradford. This has nothing to do with what Gregg said, even though it is sort of dumb to say because a team hasn't gotten a rushing touchdown they can't be taken seriously. It just could mean the Rams have a bad short-yardage running game or have a really good quarterback who throws the ball more often than hand the ball off near the goal line. So as a general rule, Gregg's comment is kind of dumb, but the Rams really don't have a great running game and this needs to improve in the offseason.

The visiting Seahawks practically begged to be beaten, and the hosts refused. Yes, St. Louis has injuries. In the NFL, everybody has injuries.

An injury to the starting quarterback isn't just an injury. It's an injury that alters how an NFL team run its offense and how the offense utilizes certain offensive players. Yes, there is a reason teams have backups, but the Seahawks have a really good defense and the fact the Rams were starting their backup quarterback is an excuse for losing that is somewhat justified. Perhaps the Rams should have a better backup quarterback...but that's a different discussion.

For its part, Virginia Tech is no slouch in either category. The Duke at Virginia Tech contest paired a 6-1 top-division team with a 78 percent football graduation rate against a 5-2 top-division team with a 92 percent football graduation rate. That's exactly what college football needs -- games between major winning programs that both have graduation rates to be proud of. Yet if any sportscasters, including ESPNU's announcers, mentioned the two colleges' graduation rates, I missed it.

Again, it would be nice if the announcers mentioned each team's graduation rate, but it isn't their responsibility to talk about a team's graduation rate when they are announcing a college football game. What is happening on the football field is their responsibility to explain to the audience.

Comedy of Errors in Philadelphia: The Eagles' crowd steadily booed Michel Vick -- but then, that crowd had sat through nine consecutive home defeats, which was about to become 10. Eagles cheerleaders,

I'm still confused as to who this "Michel Vick" guy is. I thought at first it was Michael Vick's French cousin, but it could just be that Gregg Easterbrook is making the same spelling error over and over.

A terrible won-loss record should not be held against a high school coach, since winning games is just one of several things a high school coach should accomplish -- helping boys become men should be the essence of the high-school coach's role.

Then there are those high school coaches who are helping boys become men in more personal facets of their life and these high school coaches should be fired immediately.

Big-college programs are too quick to fire head coaches for losing.

Tell that to boosters who hate sinking money into a losing program. Tell that to an athletic director who relies on income from the football program to help fund the other sports on campus. It's not as simple as saying, "this coach loses games, but he graduates players, so let's keep him around." Other athletic programs at the school are helped with the income from the football program and crappy football programs have the potential to not produce as much money as a winning program. So big-college programs will fire a head coach quickly for losing because in college sports, due to the recruitment cycle, it can take a couple of years to turn a losing program around. Losing programs don't generate as much revenue as winning programs.

But at the NFL level, there is clarity of purpose -- all that matters is winning. NFL teams are entertainment organizations that do not serve any larger role in society. Losing isn't entertaining. It is perfectly fair to toss an NFL head coach out the door for a bad year.

It's also perfectly fair to toss a losing college head coach out the door for a bad year as well. A college football coach is hired to win football games and graduate players. If he sucks at winning football games then the school should find a coach who can do both.

TMQ's Law of Short Yardage holds: Do a little dance if you want to gain that yard.

Calling this a "law" would indicate it is something every team should do and not that Gregg only cherry-picks the times when a team doesn't use motion and then gets stopped in short-yardage. Carolina picked up a first down on fourth-and-short without using a fancy formation or doing a dance against the Buccaneers this past week, but Gregg conveniently leaves this out.

The trips receivers ran a double pick while the extra lineman provided blitz blocking. The result? A touchdown to an uncovered tight end cutting behind the combo move. Denver's Virgil Green could have been flagged for offensive pass interference as he pushed a defender out of the path of the primary receiver.

So apparently a team should do a little dance and then try to get away with a penalty to convert on on short yardage.

Misdirection pulls tend not to work in high school play, because young defenders only watch for the ball. NFL defenders watch the offensive line for cues. A tactic that doesn't work on kids may work on adults.

It also happens that some linebacker's and defensive linemen's job on a certain defensive play-call is to take out the pulling offensive linemen to free up another defensive player to make the tackle.

Panthers leading 7-3 at hapless City of Tampa, left guard Travelle Wharton pulled right. The defense reacted and followed Wharton, expecting a trap run in the direction he was moving. Tailback DeAngelo Williams ran left, away from the line motion, nearly untouched for a 12-yard touchdown.

It makes sense the Buccaneers defense reacted to the pulling guard in this situation because if they waited another second to react and Williams was running right then he would be past the line of scrimmage by the time they figured out the play wasn't misdirection. It's often the job of the outside linebacker, cornerback and defensive end on the opposite side of the play to hold containment on the outside and guarantee the running back doesn't cut back to the left. So the Buccaneers defense should have gone to fill the hole that Wharton was pulling to (seemingly) create, because if they did not then Williams would have had a touchdown to the right instead of the left had he been running right. It was the job of the defenders on the opposite side of the play to ensure Williams didn't cut back to the left.

Also, if Gregg actually watched the game he would see that DeAngelo Williams broke two tackles on his way to the end zone. It wasn't just the misdirection that caused the touchdown, but also Williams' ability to break attempted tackles by defensive players assigned to hold containment and prevent the running back from cutting back that led to Williams rushing for a touchdown.

Dewey Beats Truman, TMQ Reports: With a minute to go, the Lions looked so beaten I jumped the gun and admitted them to the 500 Club. Then I retracted the tweet rather than delete. My view is Internet errors should be corrected, but should not vanish:

Or in the case of what Gregg proclaims in TMQ, Internet errors should just be ignored completely and instead the writer should only focus on the predictions he has gotten correct.

It's OK to be wrong once in a while -- trust me, I have plenty of experience! -- so long as you admit it.

Oh really? So the air is out of the 49ers balloon huh? The read-option has been figured out by NFL defenses and the 49ers should have kept Alex Smith over Colin Kaepernick too. Where's the admitting you were wrong about that column? Not to mention, Gregg wrote two years ago that NFL defenses catch up to NFL offenses in November and this year Gregg has written like NFL defenses are never catching up to NFL offenses and the explosive offensive numbers are here to stay. One of these positions has to be wrong.

The Peyton Paradox: Last week TMQ noted that Peyton Manning has an admirable regular-season record but a losing postseason record. Readers including Marylou Jenkens of Omaha, Neb., noted that because playoff teams are as a group stronger than regular-season opponents -- there are no Jaguars A&M-class playoff opponents -- one would expect a quarterback to do better in the regular season than postseason. Reader Kirk Taylor of Summerville, S.C., broke it down further: "Only one in 12 playoff teams each postseason will escape without a loss. More than half the teams that start the postseason end it with a losing playoff record -- if you lose the first game, you don't get another chance for a win to balance it out. Only about one team in three that reaches the postseason will end the playoffs with a record over .500."

I guess the "Peyton Paradox" should be called "Useless Bullshit Theory Created by Gregg Easterbrook Based on the Result of One Game Where He Makes an Observation, Does Zero Research Regarding the Truth of This Observation and Then Writes a Column Creating a Paradox Where No Paradox Lies."

The 1,000 Club: It's more exclusive than the Trilateral Commission. It's harder to get in than Nikki Beach Club on South Beach on a Saturday night. Reader Craig McMichael notes that in juco action, in a road game at College of the Redwoods, Mendocino College gained 1,041 yards on offense, scored 10 touchdowns, did not punt, and lost.

But how could a team that doesn't punt lose a football game when punting inspires a team to play better and tells that team the head coach is playing to win the game? This goes against all Gregg Easterbrook has told us about punting and the effect it has on a football team.

TMQ has nothing against Florida State. But assuming current trends hold -- Oregon must play Stanford, FSU faces Miami of Florida -- if the BCS title pairing isn't Ducks versus Tide, best offense versus best defense, a wonderful game will be lost.

Actually, Baylor averages more points per game, more yards per game, and more first downs per game than Oregon. So the best offense versus the best defense would be Baylor v. Alabama. Facts, they are so tricky!

Next Week: Tuesday Morning Quarterback wonders again what he wondered at the season's start -- will the NFC East be won by a losing team?

Well, the last time a losing team made the playoffs (Seattle) they won a playoff game, so I'm not seeing as how it matters. Actually, it doesn't matter, because Gregg Easterbrook isn't answering this question next week anyway.

Tuesday, October 29, 2013

6 comments MMQB Review: Matthew Stafford is So Different Now, Except for He Probably Isn't

Peter King told us last week the Colts had a little Luck (DO YOU STILL GET IT?) in beating the Broncos during Week 7. Peter also was concerned the Rams would not get enough attention because the Cardinals had a home game in the World Series, as well as continued his trend towards overreacting to what happened the weekend before by handing the AFC West to the Kansas City Chiefs and giving the Broncos an AFC Wild Card spot. Peter can hear us scoffing at him now, but less than 50% of the season had been played at that point, so the playoff seeding is nearly set. This week Peter talks about Matthew Stafford "coming of age" (which means, "Calvin Johnson had a great receiving day"...sort of), goes through the comments section of MMQB for responses to the MMQB (not the MMQB, but THE MMQB) articles about concussions, and relays a story from Robert Klemko about really weird Japanese people. Peter also continues his trend of seeing what happened over the past weekend and then reacting as if this event from the past weekend is a definite long-term trend.

Two months down, two to go. Time flies when you’re having fun. The Lions had some fun Sunday, and the resurgent Staffords will lead the column …

So I guess since the Lions won a game this past weekend over Dallas this means the Bears and Packers going to be fighting for a Wild Card spot after the Lions win the NFC North division.

but some headlines first:

Absolutely not. Let's talk about how Stafford is a great quarterback now based on the fact he made a really heads-up play at the end of the game on Sunday, had as many turnovers as touchdowns and threw for 488 yards with 329 of those yards going to one receiver.

Mike Pouncey might want to get lawyered up. As Pete Thamel and Greg A. Bedard reported Sunday night, the Massachusetts state police served the Miami Dolphins center with a Grand Jury subpoena after his game in Foxboro Sunday. “What’s this about?’’ Pouncey said when a gray-suited officer handed him the papers. It created a strange scene outside the Dolphins’ locker room at Gillette Stadium, with stunned team officials totally blindsided. Pouncey, too, evidently had no idea what was coming.

I think it would be fair to say the officer "pounced" on him, no?

Just like Clark Griswold’s Jelly of the Month Club present, the Kansas City quarterback brought more joy to two fan bases Sunday. In lifting the Chiefs to a 23-17 victory over Cleveland at home, Smith continued KC’s perfect (8-0) season.

Alex Smith continued the Chiefs perfect season by holding the Browns to 340 total yards and accumulating a massive 331 yards for the Chiefs offense. He's a winning winner who only wins. He's an efficient quarterback, as seen by his completion percentage of 59.1% which is good for 24th in the NFL, his yards per attempt of 6.28 which is good for 29th in the NFL, his quarterback rating of 82.1 which is good for 18th in the NFL, and his yards per game passing of 224 which is good for 23rd in the NFL. Smith has done all of this against such difficult teams like the Jags, Texans, Eagles, Giants, Titans, Raiders and Browns. Smith has been his usual average self against some really below-average competition, so kudos to him.

If you can't see through all that sarcasm, I think the Chiefs are a paper tiger. I had them at 9 wins before the season began and I think I was wrong about that number, but playing Denver and San Diego twice, along with a game against the Colts is going to tell me how good the Chiefs really are. Hey, I could be wrong and the Chiefs are one of the two best teams in the AFC, but I think the second half of the season isn't going to be as kind to Alex Smith and the Chiefs.

The original trade was Smith for a second-round pick in 2013 and a third-rounder in 2014 … but the third- in ’14 would become a second- if the Chiefs won eight games or more this season. That happened by mid-afternoon Sunday, as the Niners were trudging off the field at Wembley Stadium in London after whipping Jacksonville 42-10. As if San Francisco draft guru Trent Baalke needed more ammo, he now could be looking at six picks in the first three rounds next May:

Take that, Gregg Easterbrook, Mr. "The 49ers should have kept Alex Smith." As Alex Smith wins game for the Chiefs he helps the 49ers get a higher draft pick.

This just in: Calvin Johnson’s good. He had a nice month in three hours Sunday at Ford Field in Detroit’s 31-30 shocker of Dallas: 14 catches, 329 yards (seven short of the all-time single-game record), one touchdown.

I would love to know what kind of quarterback Matthew Stafford would be if he didn't have Calvin Johnson out there catching the ball for him. I know it's not fair to wonder that since Stafford does have Johnson and if you took any quarterback's best receiver away he wouldn't play as well, but so much of Stafford's success lies in having Johnson out there. Stafford's worst games of the season were when Johnson wasn't healthy. I probably have no point.

Remember the good ol’ days? Way back in the first half of the first game of the season, when the Chip Kelly offense was all the rage?

No Peter, but I remember all summer when you were up Chip Kelly's ass about how he ran his practices and talked about how the Eagles are doing things SO MUCH differently than every other NFL coach does things. I remember when you said the Chip Kelly hiring was the biggest hiring from the college ranks since Jimmy Johnson. I also remember when I stupidly bought into the crap you and your fellow sportswriters were peddling and predicted the Eagles would win the NFC East.

There’s some thought that because there is no “home” team in England, and selling a bad Jacksonville team (the Jags will play a game there in 2014, ’15 and ’16 at least) will be problematic right now, a good option is every team alternating. Of course, that won’t be a good option the minute you tell a Packers, Steelers, Broncos or Seahawks fan he  or she has to lose a home game for the sake of expansionism.

Actually that won't be a good option for the fans of any NFL team who loses a home game for the sake of expansionism. I'll be damned if I want my favorite team to have seven home games because Roger Goodell insists on expanding to London.

But as one league operative told me recently: “If you guys [NBC, where I also work] can get 850,000 viewers for a Manchester United game on NBC Sports Network, why can’t we build a block of fans like that for football over there?”

Fine, build a block of fans in England, but don't take away home games to build that block. That's like if Manchester United lost a home soccer match and played here in the United States every year. Fuck that. The NFL can do whatever it wants to build a fan base in England, that's great, but NFL fans are already getting ripped off for two shitty preseason games, so they don't deserve to lose another home game for the sake of the NFL trying to expand. Show the games in England to build a fan base, don't take away home games from NFL teams. I know my opinion is probably in the minority.

Greg Jennings in the Revenge Game: One catch, nine yards, left the locker room before the media arrived following Green Bay’s 44-31 win at Minnesota last night. That’s 264 yards fewer than teammate Cordarrelle Patterson put on the board.

Poor Greg Jennings. It's so hard to be a great receiver when your quarterbacks all suck. Perhaps next time before Jennings runs his mouth about Aaron Rodgers he should find out if any of the quarterbacks on his Vikings team are any good or not.

I wrote last year about the possibility of a quarterback, in the not-too-distant future, throwing for 6,000 yards in a season. Aaron Rodgers, I theorized, would have the best shot. I’m not saying Peyton Manning’s going to do it this year, but let’s acknowledge the greatness of the first-half MVP here. In Denver’s 7-1 start,

It's a shame the Broncos are going to be getting a wild card in the AFC after starting out 7-1. At least Peter had the Broncos getting a wild card and the Chiefs winning the AFC West last week, perhaps Peter seen something shiny this week and has changed his opinion on this in the seven whole days since he last wrote MMQB. I'm sure as soon as the Chiefs lose, Peter will put the Broncos right back on top of the AFC West. 

But let’s say he adds one medium-range skinny post per game in the final eight games. Say, an extra gain of 20 per game. If Manning averages 385 yards per game in his final eight, he’ll hit 6,000.

Of course Peter is ignoring the fact Manning could already be throwing for his peak amount of yardage right now. In other words, his current passing yards per game may be Manning's ceiling for yardage in a game, but that doesn't stop Peter from theorizing how Manning could break 6,000 yards...but who’d have ever thought throwing for 6,000 would be remotely possible so soon after 5,000 started getting hit?

(Peter King in early May) "Right now, Chris Davis is averaging a home run every third game. But let's say Chris Davis starts hitting a home run every game. That's almost 100 home runs for the season. Who would have thought a player could hit 100 home runs in a season?"

Matthew Stafford’s coming-of-age moment.

“SPIKE! SPIKE! SPIKE!”

We’ll get to that.

This is the second time Peter has said he would get to this. How about he just gets to it and stops the long preamble?

Certainly, this was not Stafford’s first big comeback. This was his 10th fourth-quarter comeback. But this one just felt different to me. Something about the high-tension accuracy and the big-boy decision he made with the game ticking away.

What felt different to Peter is this comeback happened just this past weekend and Peter has started to overreact to the NFL games that just occurred, so the immediacy of the comeback makes it feel different to Peter. Sure, Stafford came back from more points down on the road against the Cowboys a few years ago, but this comeback just happened! It's just so different!

Now :21, :20 … Stafford motioning to the offense to hustle up the field. “I was looking back, yelling for [left tackle] Riley Reiff to hurry up,’’ Stafford said … :19, :18 … Now motioning madly for Reiff to get in place, while also yelling “SPIKE” and giving the universal “spike’’ signal, the hand gesturing hard to the ground, over and over … Reiff in place, at :16.

“So I’m on the line, and everyone in the stadium thinks I’m spiking it, and that was the plan,’’ Stafford said. “The other 10 guys [on offense] thought I was too. I thought I was—but then I saw a couple of their guys, almost standing up, and I just had this thought: Maybe I could make it by sneaking, or just putting the ball over the line. Maybe that was our best chance.’’

Plus, Stafford didn't have enough room to just throw the ball up in the air to Calvin Johnson as he prefers to do, so he had to try something different.

But no timeouts left. Clock running. If Stafford failed, there was a chance he wouldn’t get another play off.

I believe Peter is being overdramatic here. If Stafford failed then he and his linemen could have gotten up and possibly spiked the football. It's not like they had run anywhere, they just had to get up, get the ball re-placed and then spike it. Maybe not, but "there was a chance" Stafford wouldn't get another play off. There's also a chance the Lions could have gotten another play off. Naturally, Peter chooses the more dramatic of the options.

So why? Why do it? Why not the fade to Johnson, who could win a jump ball against most of the Dallas defenders—shoot, against all of them? If it’s incomplete, another fade, or a rollout pass.

Because Stafford has matured, Peter. He's like completely mature now.

“You just feel it,’’ he said. “Hard to explain. You just go to the line and you feel it sometimes, and I just felt: Our best chance is me taking to the ball and diving it over. I mean, all we were was three inches from the end zone.”

Snap … :14 … Stafford takes the ball, grips it as tight as he can, and with much of the defensive line looking on impassively, he thrusts the ball clearly over the line and brings it back. Touchdown.

This was a great play, but the Lions had just run a play that ended near the goal line with 26 seconds left in the game. The Lions offensive linemen ran 22 yards in that time, got the ball set, and ran a play in 12 seconds. It's completely possible, and probably very likely, if Stafford's attempt to score failed the Lions would get another play off in the approximate 10 seconds left in the game. So Stafford's play was very smart, but also not quite the risk that Peter is so much wanting to make it out to be. Peter loves a little drama though.

I know how sportswriters love their narratives and love to see a group of events turn into a story, so "Matthew Stafford has matured" is the likely narrative to come out of this game. More likely nothing has changed and Stafford had a big game because Calvin Johnson had a fantastic game, while Stafford happened to also make a smart play to win the game for the Lions. I still think the comeback against the Cowboys on the road a couple of years ago was the better Stafford comeback. Of course, immediacy usually wins, so this Cowboys-Lions game had to have been a turning point for Stafford in his career.

In the past week, we at The MMQB have tried to take the head-trauma debate deeper, with 19 stories exploring ideas about a safer game, the realities of playing a violent game, and the complicated issues facing youth and high-school football today.

My takeaways from the series: It surprises me that parents—and we interviewed 23 of them who spoke this way—cede the decision to play or not play high-school football to their sons.

That has changed in the time since I was a (quite marginal) high-school athlete in Enfield, Conn. If my father and mother thought the sport I was playing was excessively dangerous, they’d have interceded and recommended and/or demanded I not play.

PETER'S PARENTS CARED ABOUT HIM MORE THAN PARENTS TODAY CARE ABOUT THEIR CHILDREN!

I understand wanting to empower your children, but I’m not sure empowering 15- and 16-year-olds who make decisions based very often on emotion is a smart call …

Because it appears the alternative is to intercede and run the risk of your child growing up to be a oft-pretentious sportswriter who expects no human being at any point to interfere with his perfect existence on the planet and feels the need to comment when he perceives someone isn't acting in the proper fashion while on a plane, train, or automobile.

Now for some reactions to the writing we did.

From the comments sections...

Getting reactions from people in the comment section from a widely read sports article is perhaps one of the most useless and futile exercises to get constructive feedback that a sportswriter could participate in, but here we go anyway...

From “branlishan:” “There is a non-stop assault on football by SI and its writers. We get it now. Football is dangerous. If football is such a barbaric sport then why do you cover the games and bring attention to the glory of it all? SI should stop with the hypocritical garbage. Either line up behind the ‘ban football’ crowd and stop covering a sport that is so dangerous, or shut up. Because this non-stop assault never ends.’’

I hate it when sportswriters provide a non-stop assault of facts they have discovered when investigating a topic. Stop with the facts and give me more filler!

From “decredico,” to me: “You sat on this story for years and under reported it and you are part of the package that kept this off the radar for many years. You are a disingenuous hypocrite that should be excoriated and excommunicated and banished to writing for the local garden section of a small town newspaper.’’

This is why you ignore the comments section. I write about Peter King every week, but come on, it's not his job nor is he qualified to do research on concussions and then report on it in-depth. Peter could do the reporting, but the story hasn't been researched for years, so there is no way Peter "sat" on the story. People are idiots.

From “hlmencken56:” “We’re just a country full of cowards now. Everyone is a victim, and nobody should ever get hurt, or the risks always must be lowered.”

This isn't constructive nor instructive. Clearly, this idiot has never played football nor dealt with a loved one that has a traumatic brain injury.

Now for emails THE MMQB received on the topic of concussions...

“I have been a fan of you and your MMQB column for seven or eight years now and never miss one. I was really looking forward to your new MMQB page and for the most part I have really enjoyed it. However lately I have not nearly enjoyed MMQB as much. I feel like I have been given a concussion by being beaten over the head with your concussion reports. Please go back to the reporting of fun football.

Yes, don't let reality infringe on the fun part of watching football. Ignore the negative, report the positive. Stick your head in the sand and ignore the problems. Brilliant, brilliant line of thought.

You don’t have to ignore concussions completely, but man I feel like you guys are trying to ruin something that I enjoy so very much.

It sounds like someone doesn't enjoy hearing about the physical problems his "fun" sport causes on the NFL players that makes the sport not-so-much fun after a player has retired.

It’s like if every time I eat something bad for me, my wife is standing behind me telling me that it’s going to kill me.”

 —Brock

Well maybe it will kill you and you shouldn't eat it then. Why do I have the feeling Brock weighs about 400 pounds or has had multiple heart attacks, but refuses to change his eating habits? Clearly, he wants to stay in denial until he needs help, in which case he obviously wants someone to help him so he can get back to having "fun."

I'm getting way off topic, but Brock either needs to read and learn from the MMQB reports about concussions or ignore them entirely if he doesn't like the reality of what these reports say to him.

“As a parent with a 9-year old and 14-year old playing football, and as a coach and huge football fan, I think the real problem here is all the negative publicity that is causing unnecessary concern and alarm. I do believe that efforts must continue to be made through better equipment, medical supervision and education. However the media needs to stop talking about it. Parents should be talking about it, players should be talking about it, coaches should be talking about it, medical professionals need to be talking about it but the media needs to leave it alone!! If that happens, both the safety and future of the game will be protected!’’
—Kris, Abbotsford, British Columbia

So the media needs to quit talking about concussions and let parents, coaches, medical professionals, and players talk about concussions using the information provided by...who? Generally, if the media doesn't disseminate information about a topic it's not that easy to be provided information on that topic. If I'm a parent who wants to get information on concussions to decide whether to allow my child to play football or not, should I just starting calling medical professionals or go to youth league games to talk to random parents about concussions? This just seems nonsensical to say, "Hey, we should be talking about concussions, but not the sports media. The sports media should ignore concussions."

Fine Fifteen

Yep, still in seemingly random order and still too reliant upon what happened just this past week. 

1. Kansas City (8-0). I debated putting the Chiefs here, after they struggled to beat Houston and Cleveland at home in the last eight days while others up top—the Niners in particular—have been strafing the league mercilessly.

But the Chiefs are undefeated. How can you pull an undefeated team from the top spot? Were the Chiefs impressive in not having lost any games just a week ago, but now they are unimpressive in winning games and that all of a sudden matters?

There are no style points in football, though, and the Chiefs are undefeated halfway through the season.

There are no style points?

3. San Francisco (6-2). Five straight wins by an average of 22.6 points. This team’s getting scary. 

Peter says there are no style points, yet he places the 49ers above three one-win teams and quotes by how many points the 49ers have won their last five games. There are no style points, unless there are style points.

4. Denver (7-1). Why San Francisco over the Broncos? Because I trust the Niners defense right now. I don’t trust Denver’s nearly as much.

Plus, style points. Of course Denver's only loss came to the team that is #2 in Peter's Fine Fifteen, while the 49ers have lost to the #2 and #5 teams in Peter's Fine Fifteen. But of course, there's no style points yet Peter puts the 49ers above a team that has one fewer loss and beat the 49ers head-to-head.

9. New England (6-2). So flawed. So hard to read. So hard to think this is an impact team in January—but the defense, even without Wilfork/Mayo/Talib, is a competitive group with players like Logan Ryan who don’t know they’re not supposed to be making game-deciding plays.

When a sportswriter lacks the ability to quantify why a team is playing well, he/she just writes crap like saying a team has players "who don't know they aren't supposed to be making game-deciding plays," as if this really means anything.

10. Detroit (5-3). One premier team with one premier quarterback (Green Bay, Aaron Rodgers) left in the final eight games—unless you count Baltimore, which, right now, you can’t call a premier team. That’s why I like the Lions’ chances to be the NFC North champ or the sixth seed in the NFC tournament.

See? The Lions win an exciting game against a 4-4 team and all of a sudden Peter King thinks the Lions could win the NFC North. I'm guessing if the Lions won another exciting game then Peter will have the Lions in the Super Bowl, as long as another new, shiny team doesn't win an exciting game during Week 9 of course.

11. Carolina (4-3). You can talk about the maturation and improvement of Cam Newton, which is good and true. But this is a pretty stingy team. Panthers have allowed 12 per game in the last five.

They have beaten the Giants, Vikings, Buccaneers, and Rams. What do they all have in common? They are all not very good teams. A 4-3 record against crappy opponents sure must be impressive to Peter for Carolina to be #11 in his "Fine Fifteen."

15. Houston (2-5).

Call me crazy as I rank the Texans over Arizona, Tennessee and Baltimore (which owns a 21-point win over Houston). I say Case Keenum and that defense constitute a playoff threat still … even though Indy (twice) and Denver (once) remain to be played.

Peter thinks the Texans are a playoff threat, but as the seventh best team in the AFC at this current time he doesn't think the Texans will actually make the playoffs of course. Also, I'm not calling him crazy, but merely saying Peter is probably overly-excited about the Texans winning more games so Peter can write about J.J. Watt more.

Special Teams Player of the Week

Josh Brown, kicker, New York Giants. Not a great fan of the field goal per se (see Stat of the Week), but in the first 55 minutes at Philadelphia, these were the only points: Brown, 40-yard field goal; Brown, 44-yard field goal; Brown, 33-yard field goal; Brown, 46-yard field goal; Brown, 27-yard field goal.

Only Peter King would name a kicker the special teams player of the week in the same MMQB where he essentially says that field goals are becoming too easy for kickers to make. I guess he believes field goals are too easy to make, but not too easy for a field goal kicker who makes five field goals to impress Peter.

Goat of the Week

Shaun Suisham, kicker, Pittsburgh. Kickers this season are making 94 percent of their kicks from inside the 40-yard line. Suisham missed 34- and 32-yard field goals, veritable extra points in today’s games. The Steelers lost by three. Pretty easy call.

Because field goals are so easy to convert and kickers never have a bad day.

“You have to understand the beast that’s playing quarterback. Once a guy like that gets in front of the whole defense, he’s a legit 4.4. It’s real.”

—Pittsburgh safety Ryan Clark, after Oakland quarterback Terrelle Pryor ran for the longest touchdown in Oakland franchise history, 93 yards, in a 21-18 Raiders victory Sunday.

So now the Raiders just have to figure out a way to get Terrelle Pryor in front of the whole opposing defense and the Raiders offense will be unstoppable.

At some point, the NFL’s going to have to acknowledge the efficiency of field-goal kickers is just too good. And the league is either going to have to narrow the goalposts or put a different point value on field goals from different distances.

Don't you hate it when NFL kickers become too good at their jobs? Once a player gets too good, it's time to move the goal posts (literally and figuratively it seems).

This easy, as the season nears the midpoint:

From inside the 40-yard line: 230 of 245, 93.9%. From between the 40- and 49-yard line: 126 of 153, 82.4%.

Do we want the game to be so boring, to lack any suspense, when a kicker steps up to make a field goal?

Maybe Graham Gano just sucks, but I don't really think a field goal is a given when a kicker steps back to attempt one. I guess the percentages say a field goal is a pretty good bet when a kicker lines up for one, but I still don't feel like it is a given personally.

I can tell you the founding fathers

Yeah, George Washington and Benjamin Franklin would be pissed about the current state of field goal kicking in the NFL.

of this game never dreamed the kickers would be so great that they would be good on 87 percent of their field goals through nearly half a season.

Oh nevermind, the founding fathers of "this game" not of "this country."

I would imagine the founding fathers of football also didn't dream of a forward pass and quarterbacks putting up 500 yards passing in a game. I'm not disagreeing with Peter, just saying any change to the vision of the founding fathers isn't necessarily a bad change for the game of football.

Then Peter King remarks at how young Marcus Mariota is and says he wouldn't be able to legally drink a beer if he won an NFL game next year. Peter previously provided data showing how young Mariota is compared to other 2014 draft-eligible quarterbacks.

Mr. Starwood Preferred Member Travel Note of the Week

The MMQB’s Robert Klemko had to fly from Chicago to Detroit Sunday morning to cover Lions-Cowboys, and he reported this to me when he landed:

Apparently there is an edict sent out by Peter King that all THE MMQB staff members must report annoying travel-related details to him immediately.

“I get on this plane from Chicago to Detroit, and these Japanese people, five of them, boarded the plane all carrying different stuffed animals. A teddy bear in an Army uniform, another teddy bear in a pilot uniform. I’d say they were in their late 20s, early 30s. One of them was a guy, and his bear was dressed in an American desert camo uniform.

“They were clutching these animals as if they were children. So I am sitting amidst them. The flight is taking off, and they’re not panicked or anything—but they’re whispering things in Japanese to the bears as if they were children. Then they just held them for the rest of the flight.

Wait, so these five Japanese people held on the teddy bears and whispered things in Japanese ALL WHILE MINDING THEIR OWN FUCKING BUSINESS? It doesn't get much worse than that. How can anyone be expected to stare at random strangers and micro-criticize their behavior when there is such an obvious distraction right there in front of his/her face? I'm sure there was a man on the plane who blatantly chose to watch the same television show on repeat for the entire flight and Robert Klemko didn't get to comment on this guy's behavior because these five Japanese people were minding their own business and doing something Klemko considers to be weird.

“I mean, they were holding them like they were breathing, like they were babies. Maybe they want kids and they are practicing for it. I don’t know. But there is something strange going on there.”

Perhaps THE MMQB should do a full investigation and report back in MMQB next week. I would imagine if these Japanese people wanted children they wouldn't have teddy bears as replacement children, but I know it merits a mention in MMQB as opposed to any sort of in-depth research on this topic that could be done online.

“I miss holding a baby – all my little guys are old.”
—@BarrySanders.

Yes, that Barry Sanders.

I guess Peter looked to find the most bland Tweet of the Week to include in MMQB. I would hope it is "that" Barry Sanders, because otherwise I could care even less that some random dude named Barry Sanders misses holding a child.

Ten Things I Think I Think

1. I think this is what I liked about Week 8:

d. Take those trade rumors and stuff ‘em, Josh Gordon says with his play every week.

Actually every week Josh Gordon probably says, "I'm a very good wide receiver and a contending NFL team should definitely trade for me immediately" with his excellent play.

f. Thad Lewis, who is very tough.

Thad Lewis is tough. This is #analysis.

g. Look at that lunging touchdown catch by Dexter McCluster. What a talent he is, and he’s being used perfectly as an everything back by Andy Reid.

Dexter McCluster has been targeted in the passing game 40 times over 8 games and has caught 23 passes. McCluster has 5 rushing attempts for 10 yards. If Peter King says McCluster is being used perfectly, meaning a little over six times per game, then that's not exactly a compliment to McCluster's ability.

Come on, Peter says "what a talent McCluster is" and then says he is being used perfectly. The guy barely catches 50% of the passes thrown to him and has 263 offensive yards on the year. If I'm being generous and including his punt and kickoff returns McCluster has 653 total yards and two touchdowns on the season. He's a good punt returner, but he's not exactly the offensive talent that Peter King seems to think he is.

h. Kevin Ogletree, who ran 70 yards to chase down Sean Lee on the Cowboys.

Or as Gregg Easterbrook will say, "the undrafted, unwanted hard-working Kevin Ogletree chased down the highly-drafted glory boy second-round pick Sean Lee."

2. I think this is what I didn’t like about Week 8:

d. Garrett Hartley, doinking a makeable field goal on the Saints’ first drive.

I guess from now on anytime a field goal kicker misses a field goal from 40 yards or less then Peter King will call that field goal "makeable" and criticize the kicker for missing it. Great, there's no way I could be less enthused about this new development.

e. The normally accurate Alex Smith, overthrowing a wide-open Anthony Fasano in the end zone, forcing Kansas City to settle for a field goal in the first quarter against Cleveland.

24th in the NFL in completion percentage. I guess that's "normally accurate."

a. Tom Brady, throwing behind Rob Gronkowski and getting picked by cornerback Dimitri Patterson (a very good Jeff Ireland offseason pickup), leading to Miami’s first touchdown. 

f. Geez, Tom Brady: It’s so bad you’re throwing to Rob Gronkowski in triple coverage? The good side: Officials gave the Patriots a gift defensive pass interference call on the play.

Peter King does not like it when Tom Brady passes the football to Rob Gronkowski.

j. Why, oh why, Chip Kelly, when you’re one score behind with four minutes to go, your defense playing well and three timeouts left do you onside kick?

Because fortune favors the bold! Because Chip Kelly was inspiring the Eagles to win by saying he was trying to win the game with an onside kick. You know Gregg Easterbrook is going to leave out Chip Kelly's bold move to go for an onside kick from his TMQ, even though Gregg has said a surprise onside kick is a good idea and plays like this tell a team the coach is playing to win the game. If Gregg does mention that Kelly went for an onside kick, I'm sure he'll suggest the kicker should have done a little dance before kicking the ball to throw the defense off.

6. I think for a fully healthy Peterson to have 36 carries in the last three weeks, with Minnesota struggling so much at quarterback, is absurd.

Yeah, but Josh Freeman and Christian Ponder need to be able to sling the ball around the field a little don't you know?

7. I think there are so many teams that could use Cleveland wideout Josh Gordon, so many receiver-needy contenders,

BREAKING NEWS: Many NFL teams could use a talented wide receiver on their roster.

I realize Gordon could be a positive substance test away from a lengthy suspension, but if I’m the Patriots, and I still have my full load of 2014 picks, I’d offer Cleveland a fourth-round pick that could conditionally upgrade to a third- depending on performance and try to get Gordon.

Josh Gordon is signed through 2014 and is very cheap. I'm sure the Browns would be more than willing to trade Josh Gordon for a 3rd/4th round draft pick. It's not like the Browns got a 1st round pick for Trent Richardson or anything, so I'm sure they would accept a lesser pick for a more talented player who is cheaper.

8. I think the Eagles have to be the disappointment of the season. The offense in particular.

I guess the Eagles are a disappointment depending on how much exactly was expected of them based entirely on Chip Kelly being the head coach.

A Chip Kelly team first and foremost has to have consistency and efficiency at quarterback, and Philadelphia hasn’t had that all season.

Nearly every NFL team needs consistency and efficiency at the quarterback position to succeed. The Eagles and Chip Kelly's offense aren't the only ones who need this.

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

b. Memo to Darren Rovell (said with slight annoyance): The Riddell helmet/NFL divorce you wrote about, a story that was written by Jenny Vrentas of The MMQB on TheMMQB.com last Tuesday, was not written on SI.com, as you reported. It’s The MMQB.

Memo to Peter King (with a know-it-all attitude): This is what happens when you name your site THE MMQB and write a column called MMQB that used to appear on CNNSI.com. If you wanted to brand your new website in the best possible way, brand it to avoid confusion and not in a way that reminds the uninformed that there used to be a column posted on CNNSI.com that is called the exact same thing as your new website. Sure, I don't like Darren Rovell and he should have known this, but these are the things that happen when you confuse readers with the name of your new website that also happens to be the same name of a column you write for the new website that also appears on CNNSI.com.

c. Nothing against SI.com; I love SI.com. This column runs on SI.com at well as The MMQB. But the story was not written on SI.com.

And oh yeah, don't be upset when a person doesn't know exactly which site something posted on THE MMQB comes from when it is posted on CNNSI.com also. As I write this, the front page of CNNSI.com shows this very MMQB column and the link for THE MMQB has SI.com in the url. So, it's not hard to see where confusion can happen.

d. Thanks, Florence and the Machine, for “Shake It Out.” That’s my song of the week.

I'm sure they wrote the song just for you.

h. The obstruction call (he said through gritted teeth), though a stupid rule because umpires cannot use interpretation, was called correctly to end Game 3.

I know Red Sox fans will kill me for saying this, but even if the umpires could use interpretation I could see an argument that Middlebrooks meant to trip Allen Craig. If you watch the replay then you notice as he falls to the ground trying to catch the errant throw Middlebrooks' legs go up in the air. Then he lowers his legs and raises them again as Craig tries to run over him. Since Middlebrooks legs actually came back in the air after they were on the ground and just happened to be raised again as Allen Craig tried to run in the baseline, I could see where umpires could interpret intent to trip Allen Craig. Upon seeing the replay a few times, it seemed odd to me that Middlebrooks' legs went down on the ground and then happened to raise back up when Craig tried to run in the baseline over him.

j. Quote of the Series, from Jonny Gomes to Marc Topkin of the Tampa Bay Times, concerning the fact that he was only in the lineup Sunday night because Shane Victorino’s back tightened up and forced him to the bench, giving Gomes the chance to hit the game-winning three-run home run: “I had to ‘Tonya Harding’ Victorino.”

k. Google or Bing “Tonya Harding” if that one slips past you.

Sure, just as soon as you Google or Bing "Wally Pipp." 

n. Beernerdness: Also had the good fortune to be at Game 2 of the Series on Thursday, and was nearly as lucky to be back in my favorite old neighborhood restaurant Picco, in Boston’s South End. Very good beer menu. Tried the Star Island Single, a Belgian ale from Smuttynose in New Hampshire, and it was almost like a light ale. Okay, and eminently drinkable, but not memorable.

This wasn't a memorable beer, yet Peter remembers the name of the beer, who made the beer, what kind of beer it tasted like and also remembers enough of the taste to give a review on whether he liked the beer or not.

Who I Like Tonight
 
Seattle 33, St. Louis 10. Bet you thought I’d say, “Boston 4, St. Louis 3,” didn’t you?

Nope, I didn't.

I'm not including the Adieu Haiku, because it is a haiku and a bad joke. It's a reference to the "illegal bat" call in the Patriots-Dolphins game. Fine, here it is.

I have always thought
the home for illegal bats
was in the belfry.


I bet you feel dumber having read that.