0 comments What A-Rod Has Done Wrong Today: He Didn't Sharpen His Thespian Abilities

Alex Rodriguez had a pretty good spring training by the way. He actually managed to hit a few home runs and hasn't caused the ruckus that the New York media has wanted him to cause. They wanted a circus surrounding A-Rod where a few of his teammates would back stab him and they could write all about it with glee. It hasn't happened. Of course, as I have detailed, this means the New York media has had to work extra hard (which they are against...the New York media prefers easy-to-write stories based on controversy, the longer the controversy lasts the better) to come up with things that A-Rod has done wrong. Today, Bob Raissman uses a video re-enactment of "The Sandlot" to point out that A-Rod is no longer in the Yankees' marketing plans. It's always something negative about A-Rod, even if Raissman has to streeeeeeeeeeetch to get there. A-Rod's name gets pageviews and turning anything surrounding or not surrounding A-Rod into a negative has become a sport.

Anyone else wondering why Alex Rodriguez did not perform in the Yankees’recent video re-enactment of the Babe Ruth scene from the 1993 movie “The Sandlot?”

No, I absolutely did not care nor was I wondering why Alex Rodriguez was not in that video re-enactment. In fact, I was going through my list of priorities on the day I saw that video and this is how the things I cared about were prioritized.

1. Shit I have to do, don't have to do, may not do, and anything else I may be thinking of doing or worrying about during the day that I will never get through unless there is 1,023,150 hours in a day.

2. Why wasn't A-Rod in that video re-enactment of the Babe Ruth scene from the 1993 movie "The Sandlot"?

Well as Jack Woltz, the big-shot studio boss in “The Godfather,” might say: “You don’t understand. A-Rod never gets that movie. That part is perfect for him.”

Great use of a quote from "The Godfather," which is a movie about a family that leads a life of crime and the youngest son tries through three movies to get the family out of the life of crime. There is an obvious parallel here to the Yankees, where A-Rod is leading the team down a life of crime through PED use and it's up to the younger guys, the same ones who appears in this video, to get the Yankees out of this PED spiral. And obviously, Bob Raissman thinks things around the Yankees would get better if A-Rod would just get shot or die in a garden.

An appearance by Rodriguez in the video would be tantamount to Yankees brass giving him their true stamp of approval and officially welcoming him back into the fold as a member in good standing.

So A-Rod not appearing in the video isn't because he chose not to appear or it just couldn't be fit into his schedule, but it was a metaphorical and literal move by the Yankees to distance themselves from A-Rod.

And you know if A-Rod HAD appeared in the video then Bob Raissman would write an article that went along the lines of, "The attempted A-Rod redemption tour continues with the video he made with the rest of his Yankees teammates. He's doing his best to make the public think he's not a liar and a cheat, but he'll never erase the stain of his past deeds."

In fact, I think Bob Raissman is mad A-Rod wasn't in the video, because it was a perfectly good opportunity missed to rip A-Rod for trying to be light-hearted.

It would also further soften Rodriguez’s tainted image, placing him smack in the middle of a singular group of players the organization has left to market.

Exactly. The Yankees do not want Rodriguez to be acknowledged as part of the team, so the role he would have had in the video went to another player the Yankees liked. The Yankees are pulling some strings for the purposes of pulling A-Rod from a silly video. I'm sure that's a realistic line of thought. 

Seriously, as cute and fun as this video is, it shows the direction and lengths Bombers brass must go to sell players like CC Sabathia, Didi Gregorius, Dellin Betances, Jacoby Ellsbury, Brian McCann and Brett Gardner.

Oh yeah, because what Yankees fan has ever heard of no-name players like Jacoby Ellsbury, CC Sabathia, Brian McCann and Brett Gardner? Who are these guys? It's not like three of these guys were expensive free agents the team signed and received a ton of press for signing or anything like that. Without Derek Jeter on the team, half of these Yankees players need name tags. That's the line Bob Raissman is selling here.

We are a long way from the Joe Torre years. The Yankees were once a mixture of the Core Four, high-priced superstar free agents and other assorted homegrown heroes.

Total contract value for four of these players? $472 million. Oh yeah, I remember the days when the Yankees had high-priced superstar free agents on the roster. Why doesn't that happen anymore? Dellin Betances is a homegrown player for the Yankees. But yeah, in all serious the Yankees of 2015 aren't the same team that they fielded in the late 90's and early 2000's. This doesn't mean Yankees fans don't know who Ellsbury, Sabathia, McCann, Gardner, Gregorius, and Betances are of course.

Ticket sales and TV ratings were not a problem.

But now the Yankees are struggling financially and the Yankees were only 3rd in the majors in attendance last year. They are struggling and nothing proves this better than A-Rod not appearing in a re-enactment video from a movie. By the way, Bob Raissman may be going insane.

The reality now is the Yankees are a team in transition. The glitz is gone. See, it’s doubtful any current players are going to be seen, like Derek Jeter was, in national TV commercials providing huge exposure for him and the team.

Players like Derek Jeter only come along once in a decade or two, so it's not surprising the Yankees don't have a current player who can immediately fill the national TV spot void that Jeter had. You know what other team doesn't have a player who appears in national TV commercials? The San Francisco Giants. That probably explains why they are a team in transition and were only 4th in attendance last season.

This means going in another direction to sell individual players to potential ticket buyers and viewers. Instead of just relying on the hard sell — only featuring pure baseball video, interviews, etc. — the producers of the “Sandlot” video showed these guys in a different light.

This video means about 1.56% of what Bob Raissman believes it means. And I like how Derek Jeter isn't even on the Yankee roster anymore, but everything still comes back to him at some point. Old habits for New York sportswriters die hard.

They are doing some acting, having a lot of fun, showing plenty of personality. The cast comes off as very likeable.

And that's why A-Rod wasn't in the video, because nobody in the Yankees organization finds him to be likeable he was not invited to be in the video. A-Rod's absence is conspicuous because Bob Raissman needs A-Rod's absence to be conspicuous. Everything means something when Raissman faces a deadline and can't think of anything else to write about.

None of this translates to what will go down on the field this season.

What? You mean because the Yankees did a team re-enactment of a scene from "The Sandlot" this doesn't mean anything for how they will perform on the field during the season? This is beyond shocking to me. I was under the impression team videos in spring training had a direct impact on a team's performance on the field during the season. Who can forget the Royals, another team with no marketable superstars who somehow managed to win enough baseball games last year to make an appearance in the World Series, and their team karaoke edition of "I Will Survive" last spring training? This performance was credited by Ned Yost as the very reason the Royals made the World Series. I guess Ned Yost was wrong.

What this video does translate to is it translates as a direct attempt by the Yankees to convince the public that Alex Rodriguez is not on the Yankee team and to indicate by A-Rod's lack of an appearance in the video that he is NOT a part of the team's marketing strategy. The Yankees want to get no-name players like Brian McCann, CC Sabathia, Jacoby Ellsbury and Brett Gardner at the forefront of the team's marketing in an effort to get the public to know their names. This wasn't just a team video, it was a direct attempt by the Yankees to shun A-Rod.

But this is about being proactive, trying to sell the team in different ways. Showing players out of their element is good business, smart marketing.

I bet the Yankees are glad they have Bob Raissman's approval. I know the team was nervous that Bob wouldn't think they used smart marketing, especially knowing he was on to them when he saw they left A-Rod out of the re-enactment video. Mark Texieira is also left out of the re-enactment video, so who knows what that means for Tex's future with the Yankees franchise? Masashiro Tanaka wasn't in the team video either, so I guess the Yankees aren't planning to market the team using him in any way. This team video featuring a re-enactment of a scene from "The Sandlot" is indicative of the Yankees ENTIRE marketing plan for the 2015 season.

After all, despite what serious seamheads, saber(metric) swallowers,

Bob immediately loses more credibility by writing "saber(metric) swallowers." Bob is hitting for the cycle right now though by creating issues where there isn't one, projecting issues on to the Yankees that may not exist involving Alex Rodriguez, participating in some Derek Jeter nostalgia on how life around the Yankees won't ever be the same again without him around until it is, and he manages to bash Sabermetrics. Very impressive.

and self-proclaimed guardians of the game swear, baseball is more show business than anything else. No different from a movie or a Broadway show.

This from a guy who found time to bitch about American announcers seeming to cheer for the United States during the World Cup. Baseball is show business, but soccer announcers have no right to try and help citizens of their country try to enjoy a soccer game by showing a slight bias towards one team. Who cares if nearly every country had announcers from their home country calling the games? Baseball is entertainment, but announcing soccer games is some serious shit. 

And of course, Raissman tells his readers that baseball is entertainment while breathlessly trying to create a drama out of Alex Rodriguez not being in a team video. The huge deal Raissman and his media friends have made out of every single move A-Rod has made over the past few months definitely shows their understanding that baseball is just entertainment. That's why there has been all this journalistic grandstanding about A-Rod evilness, because it's just a sport, so why are you so serious about everything you stupid stat heads who refuse to moral grandstand about A-Rod's existence in the baseball landscape?

The idea is to push the product. By taking this video route, the Yankees showed creativity. Still, it will be impossible to quantify if this cinematic masterpiece produces tangible results.

This is probably one of the most meaningless columns I have ever read. It rambles from "A-Rod isn't in the video so that means something," to a rough transition on how this is the Yankees' entire marketing strategy, and now Bob Raissman is playing the critic who is judging whether this marketing attempt to build around no-name players that also happen to not be no-names will work for the Yankees or not. Will the Yankees have terrible attendance like they did last season when they were only 3rd in the majors in attendance? If not, this video will have worked. If the Yankees attendance stays in the doldrums of 3rd place, then it will just prove the team should have not marketed itself around players the average Yankees fan has never heard of, which also happen to be some of the highest paid players on the Yankees team. But of course it all comes back around to...

Especially without A-Rod’s presence.

A-Rod. It always comes back to an invented issue involving Alex Rodriguez. The New York media has to be frustrated that A-Rod has hit well in spring training and doesn't seem to have created the distraction they wanted him to create. Trying to connect A-Rod's lack of involvement in a team video to any feelings his teammates have about him or writing a column about what A-Rod not being in the team video may or may not mean is an incredibly pointless exercise. But hey, I'm the one that takes sports too seriously because I sometimes use Sabermetrics. If only I could be more laid back and view sports as entertainment like Bob Raissman does.

0 comments Safely Behind His Keyboard, Scoop Jackson Suggests Derrick Rose Should Risk Further Injury to Win an NBA Title This Season

I have no idea what goes on in Derrick Rose's head. I'm not sure anyone other than Rose really knows. What I do know is that Rose has suffered another injury which will prevent him from continuing to reach his potential and also potentially prevent the Bulls team from reaching their potential. Scoop Jackson has a sort of vague idea that he is pushing. He thinks when Derrick Rose comes back the Bulls should just go-for-broke. I'm not 100% sure what all this entails, but it seems to entail Derrick Rose playing all-out and ignoring whatever part of him that wants to hold back and prevent a further injury. It's remarkably easy for a sportswriter who is sitting behind a keyboard to suggest an athlete just go all-out and not worry about his health, because that sportswriter doesn't have to worry about anything other than bleary eyes while staring at his computer screen. Scoop Jackson admits this, but says that Rose should still go-for-broke and worry about the consequences later. The worst advice sometimes come from those who don't have to deal with the ramifications of their own advice. It's a brave man who can suggest another person risk his health in order to achieve a professional goal. Yeah, everyone else should rub dirt on it and continue playing. Easy to say while sitting on the sidelines and not dealing with the emotional, physical, and psychological effects of continuously being injured.

Now what?

There are so many answers to that small yet supremely meaningful two-word question that there's almost no place to start where any answer is the right one.

Well, there is a right answer. Go-for-broke NOW. Lay it all on the line and try to win an NBA title while holding nothing back. That seems to be the only right answer Scoop can find. I'm not sure if the Bulls weren't trying to go-for-broke and win an NBA title prior to Rose's injury, but apparently they were missing a certain panache that would satisfy Scoop's need for someone else to put life (okay, maybe not "life) and limb at risk for an NBA title.

With recent concerns over the six weeks Jimmy Butler is likely to miss with a high-grade ulnar ligament elbow sprain and small bone impaction and the unknown return of Taj Gibson from an ankle sprain (he's day-to-day but in a walking boot), the Chicago Bulls are back to the familiar territory of having to play "next man up" basketball until at least the opening round of the NBA playoffs.

Other NBA teams have injuries they need to play through as well. It sucks the Bulls lose so many key players, but perhaps these injuries are a reason why ignoring the chance of a recurring injury by coming back from injury too soon isn't in Derrick Rose's best interests. Of course, this column isn't about Derrick Rose's best interests, it is about Scoop Jackson's need for the Chicago Bulls to win an NBA title THIS YEAR.

But with direct, laser-aimed concerns about Derrick Rose and his possible (and quasi-promised) return to the court before the playoffs begin, the answer for all parties involved is simpler and far less unsure than we might think.

It's less unsure than "we" might think? I love knowing how "we" think, as told to me by a sportswriter.

I'm basically saying it's all-out-or-nothing time. It's "we don't give a damn anymore because we have nothing left to lose" time for both the Bulls and, more importantly, Rose.

I'm not 100% sure what this means exactly, but it certainly sounds like Scoop thinks the Bulls should just try and win the NBA title this year. It seems he also thinks Derrick Rose should play in the playoffs regardless of whether his injury is healed or not, since he has "nothing left to lose"...except for the continued health of his body for the 2015-2016 season of course. That is unless Scoop thinks the world is ending prior to the start of the 2015-2016 season and so it doesn't matter if Derrick Rose is healthy or not for that season.

It's go-for-broke, full-on-attack, us-against-the world mode. 10X Rule-style basketball. A beast mode of which Marshawn Lynch knows nothing.

This is basically bullshit, hyperbolic writing that lacks meaning without specific examples of how the Bulls can or should "go-for-broke" and "full-on-attack" the NBA. Derrick Rose should play hard in the playoffs, regardless of whether he is healthy or not. Great, what else is included in the Bulls going "10X Rule-style" beast?

For Rose, simply use that final minute of the second quarter of Chicago's Feb. 11 game against the Sacramento Kings as a capsule: eight points, 60 seconds. It was as if Rose finally said "Kobe" and turned the game back into what it had always been to him: His muse.

This was back when Rose was healthy, prior to the injury he suffered that will knock him out until around the time the playoffs begin. See, being healthy is what helps Rose to say, "Kobe" (in saying "Kobe" does Rose mean that he's about to suffer a season-ending injury?...that's what Kobe does in his older age) and take over the game. 

Can he get through this season unscathed, uninjured, without setback? That answer, over the course of the 46 of Bulls' 60 games in which Rose been able to play, is "no." So now that we know what we know, that's all we need to know.

Que'?

Derrick Rose can't make it through a season uninjured and that's all that we need to know. So doesn't this mean the Bulls should not count on Rose being healthy all season and go-for-broke with or without him? I wouldn't logically think the answer to this non-question is for Rose to just play injured since he can't stay healthy.

He knows what he knows, and for the remainder of this season, that's all he needs to know.

We are at the point in this column when Scoop Jackson is writing words that he believes to be very deep and meaningful, and they sound deep and meaningful, but they are really mostly gibberish disguised as insight. Confuse the reader, write words that seem meaningful and maybe they will ultimately actually come off as a meaningful. Derrick Rose knows that he is always injured, so he knows he will have a hard time getting through a season healthy. Logically, I would think Rose would accept this and try to play in as many games as he can or simply retire. The way Scoop Jackson looks at it though, this means Rose should accept he's always going to be injured and play through injuries because of NBA titles and such.

So this next phase of Rose's re-re-re-return -- if the Bulls are honestly desperate to win the Eastern Conference, play in the NBA Finals and win a championship this season -- has to be in direct correlation to what we've all learned, discovered and now see to be truth.

Yeah Scoop, but what if what we've learned, discovered and now see to be the truth isn't really the truth, but is a lie that is testing the will of the Bulls team to keep true to what they really know is true and all they need to know? What if Rose's re-re-re-return is merely an example of the truth the Bulls already knew and so what we know now isn't what they knew that they knew, but is all that Rose and the Bulls already knew and have known to be the truth? So this "new" truth isn't the truth but is just another example of what the Bulls already knew and they shouldn't adjust their strategy based on this "new" truth?

No more being conservative, waiting to see what might happen. Throw caution, concern and care to the Lake Shore Drive wind and worry about the results and collateral damage later.

This is easy for Scoop to say when he doesn't have to deal with the repercussions of another injury and not being conservative while throwing caution to the wind.

Once the Bulls' roster is whole again, the "next man up" mindset should seamlessly and immediately be replaced with a "started from the bottom now we're here" belief (or lie) that if it doesn't happen now for this team, it is never, ever, ever ... ever going to ever happen.

While possibly true, I'm not sure that Derrick Rose should come back from injury ASAP even if his injury isn't completely healed. The idea the Bulls may never, ever get back here again would be motivation for Rose to come back quickly, or it could be motivation for him to get healthy and hopefully get a chance to get back there, if not with the Bulls, but with another NBA team. It's so easy for Scoop to say "go for it all" while passively suggesting that Derrick Rose not give a shit about his injuries when he's not the one who has to worry about Rose's health for the next 60 years of his life.

For someone who doesn't have to pay Rose for the two years remaining on his contract, this is both easy and reckless to say.

I give no credit to Scoop Jackson for some self-awareness because he's not changing his behavior based on being self-aware. It is easy and reckless for Scoop to say, which is why the suggestion could be seen as somewhat absurd. If the Bulls know Rose can't stay healthy, then they should just not count on him being healthy, not expect him to play injured.

Again, I have no idea how injured Rose is or if he was too conservative with his previous rehabs and recovery from knee injuries. I don't know if another athlete could have returned more quickly or not. I'm not sure anyone knows this. I do know that NBA fans don't have a right to watch Derrick Rose play basketball if he doesn't want to further injure himself. It's shockingly easy to sit back and judge Rose for not playing through injuries, but sometimes injuries are more psychological than physical. Sometimes injuries just don't go away because a player wants to grit it out and there is life after basketball.

But at this stage, in this recurring act of this Theatre of Cruelty, what do the Bulls have left to lose? The window for the Bulls winning a championship with this "close to perfect" on-paper squad is very small as things stand

What the fuck is Scoop even talking about? What does he want the Bulls to do in order to "go-for-broke"? The trade deadline is passed and the Bulls can only hope to get players who have been bought out and are free agents. What the hell does he mean when he says the Bulls "have nothing left to lose" and what action steps does he want them to take? I'm very confused about the specific steps he seems to believe the Bulls should take in March so as to win an NBA title.

As in, this is probably their strongest, if not only, chance. Cleveland is not going to get any worse (even with LeBron James probably being at the beginning stages of the back end of his prime), and this is as vulnerable as it's going to be as long as LeBron remains in a Cavaliers uniform.

(Note: Neither are the Hawks, nor the Raptors, going to get worse. And Paul George is coming back. Neither are the Warriors, nor the Trail Blazers, going to get worse. And Kevin Durant and Russell Westbrook are coming back.)

The Bulls have to win the Eastern Conference before they can start worrying about whether the Warriors, Trail Blazers and Thunder are going to get worse or not. A step at a time.

Add to that contract ends coming up (Butler) and age creeping in (Pau Gasol, Mike Dunleavy) and the continued rumored uncertainty about Tom Thibodeau's future here, and the Bulls need to treat the playoff run once Rose returns as a straight-up "can't kill something that's already dead" last stand.

I still don't understand what Scoop is advocating for. Have the Bulls previously not tried really hard to win the NBA title or something? Have their previous playoff appearances resulted in the team just half-assing it in the hopes next year the team will be more healthy? I don't get exactly what Scoop wants the Bulls to do different in the 2015 NBA playoffs that they haven't done in the past...other than tell Derrick Rose to play basketball, regardless of his health.

And from a pure state of mental selfishness, Rose needs to do the same. In his mind, he should be in nothing less than a final-opportunity state of consciousness. Anything less wouldn't be fair. To us or him.

This is selfishness to suggest that it wouldn't be fair to Derrick Rose if he didn't come back as hard as he can regardless of his health. Obviously Rose needs to play as hard as he can while on the court, but if he's not 100% healthy then he either shouldn't play or play limited minutes. I know it's not what Bulls fans or Scoop Jackson wants, but I don't believe Derrick Rose has an obligation to incur further long-term injury simply because Scoop Jackson throws some vague words and hyperbole together suggesting it isn't "fair" if Rose doesn't do this.

He has to ask himself: Is the game more significant than the injury? He also has to live with the answer.

Exactly. Scoop doesn't have to live with the answer. Derrick Rose does.

At this point, seriously, what do either have to lose? The Bulls or Rose? If they fall short and don't win, so be it.

Maybe I'm stupid. I don't understand from the Bulls' perspective what they should be doing differently to go all-out and try to win an NBA title. I'm assuming from the way the Bulls team is built and the free agent moves they made in the prior offseason that they are trying really hard to win a title. What Derrick Rose has to lose is that if he comes back prior to being fully healthy then he could incur long-term damage to his body or he won't be able to play during the beginning of the 2015-2016 season due to being injured. 

At least all involved (and all watching, invested in and concerned) will know that a Broncos-signing-Peyton Manning risk was taken for something bigger than the wait-and-see existence that has been the Bulls organization's life the past three seasons.

The difference being that when Peyton Manning needed surgery while with the Colts he sat out the entire season and then got healthy so that he could play in future seasons at as close to 100% as possible. The Broncos took the risk on Manning after Manning had gotten healthy, they didn't trot him out on the field when they weren't fairly sure his neck could hold up to a full season of playing football.

And when the final buzzer sounds on this Bulls season, whatever is left on the court and whether or not Rose is still standing, it will be a source of unmatchable pride worth honoring for however long he is able to play basketball.

This is just an incredibly over-dramatic statement. This whole column is very, very dramatic and lacks specific detail.

For Rose, it will be the step he needs to take to begin not only the process back to being who he once was as a player and person, but also to begin his possible exit from Chicago. 

Yes, Derrick Rose should come back from injury and play as hard as he can regardless of whether he is healthy or not so he can begin his possible exit from Chicago. Okay. Because if Rose gets injured again then another NBA team is definitely going to immediately want him.

The burden both on him and for him has become unrealistic, at times unfair and, at this point, too heavy.

Says the guy who is writing a column full of dramatics about this being "all-or-nothing time" and suggesting Rose should go-for-broke and try to win an NBA title, regardless of his health, because that's what Scoop Jackson and (some) Bulls fans want him to do.

Anything less than winning a championship this season, with Rose the Finals MVP, is just a furthering of one of those Chicago nails deeper into his proverbial coffin.

So if the Bulls don't win a title and Rose isn't named Finals MVP then Derrick Rose will be considered a failure? Here is what Scoop just wrote about the burden on Rose:

The burden both on him and for him has become unrealistic, at times unfair and, at this point, too heavy.

Then Scoop follows it up by saying anything less than an NBA title this season with Rose as MVP will just make him seem like more of a failure. Apparently the rules of placing a burden on athletes doesn't apply to Scoop Jackson.

His home city has become too unforgiving, Michael Jordan's shadow too big and Rose too careful for anything good to come out of what's left of him playing out his contract as a member of the Bulls.

Unless he decides to ball out in his return.

So if Rose doesn't play in the playoffs and then comes back to win the NBA MVP during the 2015-2016 season, the city of Chicago will not embrace him at all? I don't believe you.

It's ridiculous and over-dramatic to say these playoffs are Rose's last chance to win over Bulls fans. If he came back healthy next year and played like he's capable of playing then he would win Bulls fans over again.

He's been so damn focused and concerned about having his basketball life back he has been unable to "just play." To smile, to laugh, to laugh at himself, to ball, to be Pooh.

Why have Rose and his doctors been concerned about rehabbing and making sure he's recovered from injuries in the past? They should have listened to Scoop Jackson, M.D. and told Rose to "just play" and everything will fall into place after that. Broken arm? "Just play" and you will be fine.

Which is all the more reason Rose needs to go for it with reckless abandon and anger when he returns. For the first time in more than three years, just live and play in and for the moment. This singular moment.

I'm sure if he feels up to it, then he will. Otherwise, I don't see why Rose would want to continue hurting himself to play a sport when he has 60 years left to live and pay for "living in the moment" while being a basketball player. I recognize that nearly everyone wants to see Rose on the court, but going for it with reckless abandon and anger isn't any good if Rose physically, emotionally and psychologically doesn't feel up to doing this. Maybe he's a wimp, who knows?

This moment that's left. Rose needs -- even if for a brief period of time, and at the expense of missing more time in the future -- to get "just playing" out of his system ... and back into his life.

These words, "just play" don't really mean anything. I hope Scoop knows this.

Because unless Rose gets back to that point, and until the Bulls reach that point with him, anything he does will forever be considered less than zero.

This is a falsehood. If Derrick Rose comes back healthy and plays well then it's not true that anything he does will forever be considered less than zero simply because he didn't win an NBA title for the Bulls. Stop the dramatics, stop the nonsensical writing about "just playing" and "going for broke" when there's really no indication what the hell this is supposed to mean, and finally, stop telling athletes what they are required to do for the sake of their legacy. 

4 comments MMQB Review: Coming Out Edition

Peter King said goodbye last week to his super-long MMQB columns that he publishes during the NFL season. Now instead of 5-6 pages of NFL news with three of those pages being Peter's personal thoughts, quotes of the week, tweets of the week, travel notes, and facts that only interest him, his readers will get 2-4 pages of NFL news with two of those pages being Peter's personal thoughts, quotes of the week, tweets of the week, travel notes, and facts that only interest him. Peter discussed the end of the NFL season last week while discussing Percy Harvin's big debut as a Seahawk (he's totally worth the money now) and eulogized Philip Seymour-Hoffman. This week in the first offseason MMQB, Peter talks about Michael Sam who could be the first openly gay NFL player (shockingly, it is mentioned that the Patriots could draft Sam...since any semi-controversial player like Tim Tebow is tied to the Patriots out of habit), a new concussion study, continues to eulogize Phillip Seymour Hoffman because apparently he and Peter were very close, frustratingly doesn't cut any of the filler in MMQB since it is now the offseason and talks about how he bit a man's hands off on a plane. 

The news spread quickly across the NFL Sunday night. Then again, The New York Times report about mid-round draft prospect Michael Sam, the Missouri defensive end, coming out as gay two weeks before the scouting combine and 12 weeks before the draft wasn’t a surprise to every team in the league.

The Colts knew because Ryan Grigson knows everything. Grigson immediately traded his first round draft pick to move up and draft Michael Sam...then Grigson realized he had already traded his first draft choice this year and gave up a 2nd and 3rd round pick to move up 10 spots in order to pick Michael Sam. Sportswriters around the NFL agreed this was a brilliant move.

I spoke to four club officials Sunday—three general managers, one scout—and the reaction to a third-round prospect being gay ran the gamut.

What does Sam being a third-round prospect have anything to do with it? If he was a first round prospect would their reaction to the news be different? If the reaction changes based on the player's projected draft position then maybe it is smart to evaluate that player on his skill, as opposed to judging him on whether he likes girls or guys.

I spoke to all anonymously, because with such a touchy subject, I assumed all would either no-comment me (and one other GM did) or say something so sanitized it wouldn’t really be the truth. I don’t like to do anonymous sources to write an entire story, but I felt in this case it would give the best information possible.

The bottom line will always be if a guy can play football well. If Tim Tebow was as good as Russell Wilson then the rest of the shit surrounding him about his faith and the media attention would be worth it. If Michael Sam can play football, then he'll be worth the risk of the media attention. Others have covered this already, but I also like how Peter went into this offering anonymity because there's NO WAY any NFL official would give a quote with a name behind it...except NFL owners and officials have already done so. Peter apparently isn't willing to touch his contacts to actually give informed information on Michael Sam coming out of the closet. 

“It’ll totally depend on your leadership,” the scout said. “A team with strong leadership at coach and in the locker room, like New England, I would imagine, would be okay. I could see Belichick say, ‘This is the way it is. There’s no story.’ 

Well, of course. New England could have signed Jeffrey Dahmer and it would not have been a big deal. The Patriots are the go-to organization whenever it comes to wondering where a prospect with a shaky history or questions about how his personality fits a team. And yes, obviously a team would have to have strong leadership at coach and in the locker room. Most successful NFL organizations need this anyway.

“We talked about it this week,” the GM said. “First of all, we don’t think he’s a very good player. The reality is he’s an overrated football player in our estimation.

Of course if Sam puts up tremendous numbers at the Combine in Indianapolis then all of a sudden he is a guy who only flashed a little bit of his potential at Missouri and his draft stock will shoot up, followed by an anonymous GM wondering if Michael Sams will be distracted by all the penises he will see in an NFL locker room. 

I asked this general manager: “Do you think he’ll be drafted?”
 
“No,” he said.

It might be better for Michael Sam to not get drafted. Then he could choose the team he wants to play for, as opposed to being selected by a team that may not have the type of environment he needs to succeed.

And of course there is no way any of these GM's are acting cold on Michael Sams in the hopes his draft stock falls and that GM's team can pluck him up later than expected in the draft. 

Sam is from Hitchcock, Texas, near Galveston on the Gulf Coast. He led the SEC this year in combined sacks and tackles for loss and was voted the SEC Defensive Player of the Year. But he is smallish for an NFL defensive end or pass rushing outside linebacker at 6-1 ½ and 260 pounds.

If his name was "Barkevious Mingo" he would be a Top-10 draft pick. Is it Sam's height that is holding him back? Because Dion Jordan, Barkevious Mingo, Dion Jordan, and Bruce Irvin all weigh less than 260 pounds and Aldon Smith only weighs 5-10 pounds more than Sam. They were all early first round draft choices. I guess Michael Sam isn't considered tall enough to play outside rushing linebacker in the NFL. Otherwise, his weight doesn't seem to have an impact on whether he could be an outside pass rushing linebacker in the NFL or not.

Before the bombshell, Sam was rated as a third- or fourth-round prospect by many draft outlets. Mel Kiper had him as a fourth-rounder, pre-announcement, on ESPN Sunday night.

BUT DID MEL KIPER KNOW SAM IS A LITTLE UNDER 6'2"? OBVIOUSLY NOT, BECAUSE THEN HE WOULD CONSIDER SAM TO BE UNDRAFTABLE. 

But NFL personnel people fear that a player of his size who is not very quick will be neutralized by the bigger, athletic NFL tackles.

Oh, so it's already known that Sam isn't very quick? Wow, it's almost like there's no need for a Pro Day or the Combine.

He has a reputation for being a team guy willing to do what his coaches ask. His teammates at Missouri obviously like him a lot. He told them about his sexuality before last season, and they kept his secret for him.

I don't think it is a matter of liking Sam or not, but it's just respectful to keep a secret that one of your players may have when that secret isn't against the law. It's just respectful, whether Sam was well-liked or not.

“The big factor here is that the initial storm will come now, and not after he’s drafted, like maybe he was trying to hide it,” one GM said. “That’s a big factor in his favor. Very big.”

Well absolutely. Sam coming out now gives NFL GM's a reason to blame Sam's play on the field for not drafting him, rather than just admitting they don't want a gay man in their team's locker room.

I don't know if the NFL is ready for an openly gay athlete. Probably not if the Kerry Rhodes situation was any measure (I know Kerry Rhodes isn't gay, not at all...never), but that wasn't necessarily the best measure because Rhodes was a veteran who had certain contract demands before he would sign with a team. It seems to me that Sam coming out before the draft will give GM's who weren't going to draft him because he's gay to blame their not drafting him on his skill set. I like how this one GM is pretending that Sam is in better shape now by admitting he is gay before the draft as opposed to keeping his sexuality a secret until after he was drafted. Sam is clearly going to be taken off or moved down some teams draft boards because he is gay. It's like saying Michael Sam is in better shape getting caught with a pound of cocaine in his car prior to the draft as opposed to getting drafted and then getting caught with a pound of cocaine in his car. Because after all, now GM's can ask him about the issue they previously didn't know existed and this could bias their evaluation of him, as opposed to this issue having nothing to do with where Sam is drafted.

As this GM said, if a player makes a bombshell announcement before the combine and allows every team to interrogate him about it, he stands a better chance of the story burning out before the player ever reports to training camp. What could doom the player, he said, would be hiding this when it was likely to come out—either by the player or some other way. Teams do not like surprises.

I can understand this. Either way it's a red flag though, and like any other red flag it can used as a reason to take a draft-eligible player off a certain's draft board. So while I understand that teams don't like surprises, this surprise has nothing to do with Sam's character or whether he is reliable enough to count on to be a part of the team.

That’s why it’s naïve to suggest Sam’s coming out will have no effect on where he’s drafted, as the respected Kiper said on ESPN Sunday night. It could be that a liberal owner and progressive coach like Jeffrey Lurie and Chip Kelly of the Eagles will not care at all, and if he’s there in the fourth or fifth round will grab him.

Wrong. Only the Patriots have the foresight to draft a guy like Michael Sam. That's the story, stick to it. I also still love that Sam's disclosure of his sexuality is "a big factor in his favor," yet he probably is going to be drafted later due to this factor. This doesn't make sense, though it is perfect logic that a GM might use so he can act like Sam's disclosure won't really affect his draft position. So Sam coming out of the closet now is a big factor in his favor, but not a big enough factor of course to stop him from possibly sliding in the draft. What would have really been a big factor in Sam's favor is if he had just kept quiet or denied it when the question of his sexuality was asked of him. That's assuming Sam cares about his draft position of course.

And the team that takes Sam has to know what the trailblazing aspect of his presence will bring: the news shows as well as sports shows, the constant buzz when the team goes on the road, the slurs bound to come his way sometime.

Players hear slurs all the time when traveling and playing road games. They aren't always slurs about sexuality of course.

During the draft, a team that has Sam graded barely above another pass-rush prospect in the third or fourth round may ask itself: Will all the distractions—the network news trucks, the questioning of his teammates about accepting a gay teammate—be worth it? Or should we just draft the other guy and not worry about Sam’s off-field stuff?

From a business perspective I can completely understand this. It's how I feel about Jason Collins not getting a job in the NBA or Tim Tebow not having a job in the NFL. If the player is worth all the crap that the media will surround him with, then he's worth the chance, but a team has to be sure that player is worth the crap the media will surround them with. I do think it is disingenuous for any NFL GM to pretend Michael Sam has done himself a favor by revealing his sexuality prior to the Combine and draft. I think this comes from a more selfish place where a GM is trying to make it seem like Sam helped himself, but in reality this isn't true, but it's better to see open-minded now and blame not drafting Sam on his performance at his Pro Day or the Combine.

I get why NFL teams wouldn't draft Michael Sam. I just would prefer they not pretend he didn't help himself or do anyone but NFL teams a favor by revealing this information prior to the draft and Combine.

Pete Carroll was hired as Seattle coach early in 2010, followed a week later by a Green Bay scout he didn’t know, John Schneider. It’s no secret Carroll has done a terrific job coaching the Seahawks, which we all can see.

Hence, why it is no secret Carroll has done a terrific job coaching the Seahawks...because we all can see he's done a terrific job. This statement sounds redundant.

And Schneider has done a terrific job of personnel acquisition, which we all can see. But one thing about their arranged marriage that’s overlooked—I believe—is how two men who were thrown together have meshed into such a good combination.

Really, any combination of a GM and head coach tends to be an arranged marriage in some aspect, though I understand what Peter is saying. Harbaugh and Trent Baalke was an arranged marriage since Baalke was hired just before Harbaugh was hired.

Peter lists out all of the players the Seahawks have hit on in the draft since 2010 and it is very impressive. It's almost like drafting well is the key to building a successful NFL team.

An interesting new study by a team including Gregory D. Myer, the director of research in sports medicine at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, reports a correlation between a reduction of concussions and playing football at higher altitude. In the current issue of the Journal of Orthopaedic and Sports Physical Therapy, Myer’s group found that of the 300 concussions involving 284 NFL players suffered in the 2012 and 2013 regular seasons, there was a 30 percent reduction in the chances for concussion in games played at stadiums with an altitude of at least 644 feet.

But at 645 feet the players are fucked I guess. Gregg Easterbrook would not like the hyperspecificity of the altitude in the study being at 644 feet.

He says that at higher altitudes—Denver, for instance, is a mile above sea level—less oxygen and more blood flows into the brain, and the brain expands with more blood flowing into it. “That means the brain fills the excess space more inside the skull at higher altitudes,” said Myer. “There is less brain slosh.” Playing at higher altitudes, Myer theorized, increased the volume of what he called the “bubble wrap” inside the skull, creating a tighter fit and thus reducing brain slosh.

So the solution to reducing concussions is to play all NFL games at an altitude of 644 feet or more. 

Myer and his group think the NFL’s effort at stemming concussions, which is heavily based on improvements in helmet technology, is off base. “The brain already has a helmet,” Myer said in an email. “It’s called a skull/cranium.” No matter how good the helmet is, Myer thinks, the brain is going to move in it when struck violently.

Obviously the NFL would like to stem concussions entirely, but Myer's research shows this can't be done even if all of the games were played at an altitude of 644 feet. So I don't think the NFL is off base because they are trying to reduce concussions and prevent them as much as possible. Concussions will still occur, because as Myer says, the brain is going to move when struck violently. So I don't think the NFL is off base in trying to reduce the impact of the brain sloshing around when stuck violently. I think if improving helmet technology can reduce concussions then this is a solution that should be explored.

So could this be the precursor to teams at high altitudes, such as Denver, having a built-in advantage in free agency because concussions are less likely to occur a mile above sea level?

Probably not. Only eight games are played at this high altitude during a season (more if the team gets a playoff game and if you wanted to count two exhibition games), so there are still eight games played at a lower altitude. Is a player that intentionally plays a violent game where he could suffer long-term brain damage going to pass up more money in order to play at a higher altitude to (maybe) prevent a concussion? Not many players would do this.

So this company has sprouted up called Fantex, and it cut a check to San Francisco tight end Vernon Davis for $4 million a couple of weeks ago. Not that this is earth-shattering, because famous players make all kinds of silly money off the field. But this caught my eye because Davis didn’t have to do anything for the money. It’s his, free and clear, with this one proviso: Ten percent of all the money he makes in football and all football-related ventures (such as working in an NFL broadcast booth or studio after his career) goes back to Fantex—and you can profit from it by buying stock in Vernon Davis. Davis cannot discuss the deal until after the Securities and Exchange Commission approves it.

Bill Simmons is clearly pleased because he's wanted to buy stock in crazy occurrences that happen during an NFL game, so this is one step closer to that occurring. Otherwise, I'm not buying stock in any athlete. It just sounds like a bad idea to me.

So this company has sprouted up called Fantex, and it cut a check to San Francisco tight end Vernon Davis for $4 million a couple of weeks ago. Not that this is earth-shattering, because famous players make all kinds of silly money off the field. But this caught my eye because Davis didn’t have to do anything for the money. It’s his, free and clear, with this one proviso: Ten percent of all the money he makes in football and all football-related ventures (such as working in an NFL broadcast booth or studio after his career) goes back to Fantex—and you can profit from it by buying stock in Vernon Davis. Davis cannot discuss the deal until after the Securities and Exchange Commission approves it.

My issues with this lies in how would I know what the stock is valued at and how to measure the value of a stock in Vernon Davis? Also, the possibility of insider trading is absolutely enormous. Say I am a FOX Sports employee and I know Vernon Davis is high among the list of athletes we are looking to hire after his playing career is over. At that point, I'm going to buy stock in Vernon Davis because I know he is high on the list of players the network wants to hire in the future. So isn't that some sort of insider trading? I have information not available to the general public about Vernon Davis and his future earnings potential that could cause his stock to increase. The same goes for if I was an employee who worked for Vernon Davis' agent. Say I am the assistant to Vernon Davis' agent and I know he has begun contract negotiations to extend his contract. At that point, I am going to buy stock in Vernon Davis and encourage my friends and family to do so as well. Wouldn't this be considered some sort of insider trading?

“Doug! We whipped their a–. That s— wasn’t even close.”

—Russell Wilson, 90 minutes after the Seahawks won the Super Bowl, to teammate Doug Baldwin in the Seattle locker room, as captured by Sports Illustrated’s Scott Price in his insightful game story in the magazine last week.

Well, at least he was classy about the victory and didn't privately talk about how bad the Seahawks had beaten the Broncos. I would imagine if Jay Cutler won the Super Bowl and gloated like afterwards then Peter King would find it to be bad sportsmanship and not at all cutesy like he finds it to be when Russell Wilson says this.

Of course, it does help that what Russell Wilson says here is true.

“Guys feel like, ‘If I can do this, it keeps me away from maybe Vicodin, it keeps me away from pain prescription drugs and things that guys get addicted to.’ Guys look at this as a more natural way to heal themselves, to relieve stress and also to medicate themselves for pain. Guys are still going to do it.”

—Free agent safety Ryan Clark, in comments to ESPN about teammates on the Steelers using marijuana.

I am enjoying all of this justification for why the NFL should take marijuana off the list of banned substances. It's fantastic to hear the players justifying the use of marijuana with saying it helps them kick other drugs or it helps to relieve stress. Just be honest. Players want to smoke pot. That's what they want to do and they don't want to get suspended for doing so. I'm sure for a certain percentage of players they do want to relieve stress or medicate themselves, but I'm guessing the majority of players just want to smoke pot.

“He had a rare ability to illuminate the varieties of human ugliness. No one ever did it so beautifully.”

—A.O. Scott of The New York Times, on actor Philip Seymour Hoffman, who was found dead of a suspected heroin overdose on Feb. 2 at age 46.

I recognize someone (out of the 8 readers) probably thought I was being insensitive last week when discussing Philip Seymour Hoffman's death. So I will run the risk of being insensitive again. Hoffman was an actor. He wasn't anything more or anything less. He didn't illuminate the varieties of human ugliness, he pretended to be someone for a role. And yes, other people have done it more beautifully. He is an actor who had a drug problem that killed him. It's sad for his family, but it's no sadder than the other people who die everyday from drug-related issues. Stop making him a deity and something more than he is. He's an actor who helped to cause his own death through his drug use. Caused or not caused by addiction, this is sad, but the amount of bullshit I am reading about Hoffman as if he cured cancer, relentlessly fought to feed the hungry and homeless or made another large societal impact on par with the world's greatest individuals is tiresome. He was a great actor and he is dead now. Just let him be a great actor, don't wax poetic prose about him as if he were something more. I despise how celebrities are put on a pedestal as if because they are famous, this makes them better than the average individual.

One variety of human ugliness that Hoffman did illuminate is the effect drugs have on people and the loved ones who had to suffer with his use of drugs. It wasn't beautiful, it's tragic. I want all the star-fucking to stop. I enjoyed some of his movies, but he didn't have a great positive societal impact outside of his role in movies and using the word "shart" in a sentence. I have no problem with eulogizing Hoffman, but when fancy words get thrown into a sentence to make Hoffman more than he was it begins to irritate me.

One last thing...I read Aaron Sorkin's eulogy in "Time" for Hoffman and one comment made by Hoffman to Sorkin really irritated me (I know, imagine that). He said if he or Sorkin died of an overdose then it would mean 10 other people wouldn't. Of course Sorkin, being the type of person he is (meaning an out of touch Hollywood idiot), painted this as heroic and somewhat kind. It's not. It's simply justification from an addict for his addiction and Hoffman trying to turn himself into a martyr. This comment is something an addict says to make it seem like his addiction is noble or there is some good end to an eventual overdose. There's not. This comment is simply proof that Hoffman was like every other person who became a slave to drugs, willing to do and say anything to justify his actions to himself. It also takes a good amount of hubris to paint yourself as a martyr like this.

“Greatest actor of his generation,” Charlie Rose said the other day when we spoke, and I absolutely agree.

Is this like when Peter called Derek Jeter "the greatest baseball player of his lifetime" and then later clarified Peter didn't mean his actual lifetime, but just the last 20 years or so? If so, I still don't agree. If not, I completely disagree. Hoffman was a great actor, but where was all of Peter's kind words for Hoffman when he was still alive, besides completely non-existent? I never have read Peter state Hoffman is the best actor of his generation until Hoffman died. And Peter writes 48 MMQB's every year where he dedicates an entire section to thoughts like who is the greatest actor of his generation.

Pete Carroll, players’ coach. That was one of the storylines, and rightfully so, of Super Bowl week. I saw one aspect of it, as the Pro Football Writers of America’s pool reporter for Seahawk practices on Wednesday and Friday before the game. The music. Much has been made of Carroll playing loud music from the start of practices to the end.

Nice, I like how this works. Peter says "much has been made" about Pete Carroll playing loud music from the start of practices to the end, but neglects to mention he is probably the leader in making much of Carroll playing loud music. It was a part of last week's MMQB. Nothing like making a story big and then reporting on that story being big.

Mr. Starwood Preferred Member Travel Note of the Week

See, I told you that Peter skimps on the football content but doesn't dare cut back on all the other filler for MMQB. It's frustrating that an NFL column cuts back on the NFL-related material during the offseason while all the non-NFL-related material doesn't get cut back at all. I guess it tells me what kind of material Peter considers to be truly important.

The most annoying thing about air travel, February 2014 Edition, from a Delta flight last week: The guy in front of you who not only reclines his seat completely so it’s in your face, but is a bulbous guy who then falls asleep with his two meaty hands (meatier than “Man Hands” in Seinfeld) stretched behind his head over the seat and into your airspace.

That is annoying and I feel like my life has been considerably enriched by Peter imparting me with this knowledge. Obviously Peter is the only one who has ever been inconvenienced while traveling, so it's very important he tells us how difficult his life can be while traveling.

So I bit them off and spat them out on the floor.

Wait, what? I did a search for this phrase and it didn't appear to be a quote from a television show or movie. Perhaps I didn't look hard enough, but why would Peter bite this man's hands off and spit them on the floor? If he did that, then another passenger on the plane who is writing his own weekly column could talk about in his weekly travel note how his trip on a Delta flight was disturbed by a middle-aged man listening to U2 working on a laptop with a Brett Favre screensaver biting off a man's hands.

Is this supposed to be funny? Peter can't be referring to this can he?

I wrote a fairly unfunny post a few years ago in a fake MMQB about Peter King committing random murders and this "biting hands" mention was pretty close to one of the fake situations I set up in that fake MMQB.

At the time, I enjoyed writing that post. There are too many food jokes in it, but I think the method by which Peter commits the murders holds up well. Also, if you choose to click the link notice using the voice of Peter King I basically predicted on May 13, 2008 that the Saints would win the Super Bowl the next year. Maybe I should try to write bad parody more often.

“With drops factored in, Aaron Rodgers was league’s most accurate QB this season. Accurate on 79.3% of passes.”

—@PFF, the Pro Football Focus Twitter account.

Peter certainly isn't buying that Aaron Rodgers was the most accurate QB in the NFL this season. How does this reflect on Brett Favre? Not good, so Peter has to question it.

I think that’s great … and I’m sure it is a hugely impressive number. Does accurate mean “catchable?”

I'm pretty sure "accurate" means passes that were thrown to a receiver that were considered catchable. It means ignoring anything that Aaron Rodgers couldn't control, how accurate of a passer was he?

And I need context. Anyone else close?

Hey asshole, get a subscription to the site you can look these statistics up. You want the information, pay for it. That's how it works.

Ten Things I Think I Think

I think Peter King needs to quit telling his readers to "google" or do an internet search for some sort of information while refusing to do any research on questions he might have.

2. I think Jimmy Graham is a tight end, regardless of where he lines up on the field. It’s ludicrous there’s even a discussion about whether Graham should be tendered as a tight end (at a franchise number of $6.8 million) or wide receiver (at $11.6 million).

I think it's ridiculous that Peter King can't read the CBA and see how it clearly defines whether a player should be tendered as one position or another. A player should be tendered at the position he most often played and Graham was most often lined up outside as a receiver as opposed to lining up like a traditional tight end. Therefore, Graham should probably be considered a wide receiver, no matter what Drew Brees says may be true otherwise.

Remember the San Francisco-Baltimore Super Bowl, when the 49ers split out tight ends and even fullback Bruce Miller consistently during the game? Splitting a player away from the formation doesn’t mean he’s not what he is defined as. It’s going to be a sad day for football if head coaches like Sean Payton have to consider when they formulate a game plan, “Well, I can’t flex Graham out too often, or he’ll be considered a wide receiver.” 

While I agree the NFL has changed and a tight end can play away from the formation, the fact remains that Jimmy Graham most often runs routes out of a position that is traditionally considered to be that of a wide receiver. It would be a sad day anyway if a coach ever formulated a game plan based on making sure one of his best players doesn't receive as much money in free agency as that player may deserve to get.

Just a stupid, stupid can of worms that has been opened up.

Blame the CBA and then tell Jimmy Graham why he shouldn't try to  maximize his earning potential. Give Graham a good reason why he shouldn't try to make as much money as possible while healthy and playing a very violent sports.

4. I think my readers would say this to Howard Katz, the NFL’s schedule and TV czar: We want Denver at Seattle to open the season on Sept. 4. That’s not me, necessarily, though I’d certainly like to see it. That was the decisive sentiment from readers after I posed the possibilities for the NFL’s first game next season.

Of course Peter only gave his readers the opportunity to choose four teams from the eight home games the Seahawks will play next season, so maybe his readers would prefer to see the Seahawks play one of the other four teams that Peter didn't deem worthy to make the cut.

5. I think Seattle’s 2012 draft should be a clarion call to the smart people in our business to knock off draft grades. They are stupid. They are mindless and misleading candy for fans and those who think no one remembers what’s written or said 10 minutes after it’s published or aired.

This is why I update draft grades from guys like Mel Kiper every few years to see where he was correct and wrong. I gave the Seahawks a "6" based mainly on the fact I didn't mind the Bruce Irvin pick. These draft grades are just stupid fun and I would worry about what my grades reflect, other than my opinion, if I was trying to make a living off giving draft grades to teams like certain draft experts do. My analysis of the Seahawks wasn't exactly spot-on of course. It was just guessing like the "experts" are guessing.

Sampling other grades:

• NFL.com: C-plus. Seattle “took a lot of chances.”
 
• CBSSports.com: C-plus. Seattle “took Russell Wilson in the third when they just signed Matt Flynn. Why?”
 
• SI.com: C. “Russell Wilson has a bright future, even if Seattle really didn’t need him.”
 
• Mel Kiper: C-minus.
 
• Bleacher Report: D. The Seahawks “messed up … with Russell Wilson after having signed Matt Flynn this offseason.” (Another Bleacher Report draft review gave the Seahawks the only “F” grade in the class.)
 
• USA Today: Didn’t grade drafts with a letter, but basically did the same thing, ranking the drafts from 1 to 32. Seattle was 26th.

I'm surprised Mel Kiper even had the balls to give a team a "C-" grade. Usually he just hands out "C's" and low "B's" then calls it a day.

7. I think I have one comment about Seattle linebacker K.J. Wright saying the Seahawks would beat Denver 90 out of 100 times:

What's the comment, Peter? You have me on the edge of my seat as if I were watching a movie with Philip Seymour Hoffman in it.

He’s right.

Great comment. Great drama behind the comment. Very worthwhile.

9. I think Carolina’s Greg Hardy—just 25, and coming off a 15-sack season—could be the jewel of free agency if the Panthers let him get away. Young pass rushers are what every teams wants, and there are teams with lots of cap money (Oakland comes to mind) who could make Hardy think twice about going back to Charlotte.

Now seven of Hardy's sacks came in the last two games of the season against a rookie left tackle and the Falcons offensive line, so keep that in mind. Hardy will be franchised by Carolina most likely, but I find it interesting some of the criticism of Michael Sam from anonymous GM's (are there any other kind this time of year?) who said all but 2.5 of his 11 sacks came against crappy teams in the SEC. I'm betting many of the same GM's wouldn't mind a shot at signing Greg Hardy, who had half of his sacks come in the last two weeks of the season and was completely shut out by the 49ers outstanding offensive line in the playoffs. I'm guessing similar criticism of Sam and who he accumulated his sacks against won't transfer to Hardy in any way.

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

b. Fifty years ago on Sunday, The Beatles debuted in America on The Ed Sullivan Show (in the Manhattan theater where David Letterman’s show is now produced) with “I Want To Hold Your Hand.’’ Never knew that, after the show, they recorded another set that was played, to another ratings bonanza, on the show two weeks later.

I never understood the fascination with the Beatles. They were one of the first boy bands, then got serious enough to put out average and really good music, and finally disbanded to have solo careers. They got together and broke up over a span of less than a decade. They were really good, but they are more of a cultural milestone for me than they are a really good band whose music I absolutely love.

e. Thank you, A-Rod, for accepting your suspension and not subjecting the world to your bunk for the next two months.

Apparently "bunk" is defined as "Being suspended despite having failed zero drug tests while MLB pays for documents and testimony from a person who has all the incentive in the world to avoid punishment by working with MLB and nobody cares because it's A-Rod."

f. What an admirable figure Joe Tacopina is.
g. And I say that in absolute jest.

He was hired to do a job and he tried to do it. You don't have to like him.

k. Charles Barkley is such a one-of-a-kind analyst. On a conference call to promote TNT’s NBA All-Star Game stuff next week, Barkley said of the Nets, a team on a 12-4 streak at the time of his words: “The Nets stink, man … They’re beating up on a bunch of ugly chicks in the Eastern Conference. Don’t act like they’ve got a good team. Stop it.”

Peter knows nothing about the NBA and doesn't pay attention to what's happening, but he knows enough to know this is spot-on analysis.

The Adieu Haiku
Dylan sang it well:
Don’t criticize what you can’t
understand … today.

I guess the Adieu Haiku made the cut to be in the offseason MMQB's. Yippee...

2 comments Not Shockingly, Dan Shaughnessy Hates Everything the Red Sox Do, Did or Ever Will Do

It's that time of the year. The grass is freshly cut, the pitching mound and base paths are well groomed, every MLB team thinks they have a shot to win the World Series, and Dan Shaughnessy takes a preseason crap all over the Red Sox because he is a hateful, spiteful, bad excuse for a sportswriter. Dan is a great example of how far the Boston media has fallen over the last 10 years. There used to be quite a few great sportswriters in the Boston area (and I'm not the first to point this out obviously) and it seems great writing has taken a back seat to trolling for pageviews. Dan is writing some preseason columns about the Red Sox and none of them have been particularly insightful. I have two articles by Dan today. One is about Stephen Drew, a person who is just like his brother J.D. Drew, who sucks because he didn't care and wasn't emotional enough, and the other article is about how this Boston Red Sox team is kind of boring. Much like when Bill Simmons wrote about the "boring" 2010 Red Sox team, what Dan Shaughnessy means when he says "boring" is that these Red Sox aren't expected to compete for a World Series title. What's further irritating is that Dan just spent an offseason thrashing the Red Sox for signing expensive free agents that didn't pan out over the last couple of seasons. Now he's complaining the Red Sox aren't signing exciting (i.e. expensive) enough players. I would never expect consistency from Dan, but I wish he wasn't so shameless in his inconsistency.

I'll start with the article on Stephen Drew and how he is exactly like J.D. Drew, because they are brothers, and because comparing them makes for an easy column to write. And please remember The Boston Globe has put Dan Shaughnessy behind a pay wall which seems crazy to me. Is there anyone who would pay to read Dan's columns?

Stephen Drew is the new Red Sox shortstop. And the most important thing you need to know is that he is not J.D.

Stephen Drew isn't J.D. Drew. This is the most important thing you need to know about him. This is analysis.

Vince DiMaggio had to live with, “I’m not Joe,’’ just as Billy Bulger has to live with, “I’m not Whitey.” Stephen Drew comes to Fenway Park this year with the added burden of reminding us, “I’m not J.D.’’
 
Not that J.D. was all bad . . . 

"Not that J.D. was all bad...," is followed by Dan Shaughnessy passive-aggressively bashing J.D. Drew over the next 200 words using the typical lazy reasoning.

J.D. came to the Red Sox in 2007 and played five seasons at Fenway. He usually made it on the field for about 135 games a year (140, 109, 137, 139, and 81), hitting around .270 with 18 homers and 66 RBIs. But fans never warmed to Drew. 

He also hit .264/.370/.455 over this stretch. He wasn't quite as bad as fans give him credit for being.

There was the appearance that he didn’t care. He seemed to sit with a lot of little injuries. He never got into an argument with umpires and never threw his helmet or kicked dirt.

Because the best way for a baseball player to show he cares is to act like a child and get thrown out of a baseball game. Really, there's no other way to show you care.

but my favorite J.D. story involved the night he got rung up on a borderline check swing in Tampa while facing David Price. The punchout killed the Sox’ World Series bid in 2008. J.D. didn’t argue.

Maybe he should have argued, but it's irrelevant for Drew to argue because it would not have changed the call. I understand the idea of saying J.D. Drew didn't seem to care, but in evaluating his performance with the Red Sox whether he argued with the umpire is irrelevant.

When we saw him the following spring, he said he never checked the replay. Truly amazing.

Not really amazing. Many athletes won't look at a replay from the season before and will try to forget about a bad play they made to end their team's season. This happens quite often.

Stephen Drew is eight years younger than J.D. He will be paid $9.5 million this season after a year in which he hit .223 with 7 homers and 28 RBIs in 79 games for Oakland and Arizona — a year in which he was slow getting on the field because of a gruesome broken ankle sustained in the middle of the 2011 season when he played for the Diamondbacks.
 
Yikes. Overpaid. Under­performer. Too often on the shelf. Are you sure it’s not J.D.?

How do we know Stephen Drew is overpaid and underperformed if the season hasn't begun? Maybe Drew underperformed and was overpaid last year, but that's not what Dan is referring to. He's talking about how how much Drew is paid this year, so we don't know if he is overpaid and underperforming for the 2013 season yet.

Three boys. Three first-round picks. Three big leaguers. Three Scott Boras clients. Two Red Sox starters.

Yeah, but none of the Drew brothers cared enough to show emotion so they can all three go straight to hell.

The Drews grew up in Hahira, Ga., a town of fewer than 2,500 people. There’s an annual banjo-picking festival in Hahira.

That's because everyone who lives in Hahira is a hick who probably has had sex with his/her mother/father/brother/sister at some point. It was incredibly important that Dan Shaughnessy point out the Drew's hometown has an annual banjo-picking festival in order to show just how "small town" Hahira, Georgia truly is.

Dad Drew built yachts for a boat company for 26 years. Mom Drew’s family were farmers (tobacco, peanuts, corn, soybeans), and J.D. remembers driving a tractor when he was 9 years old.

I bet J.D. Drew drove the tractor expressionless and didn't even get off the tractor to argue when one of the cows got in the way of the tractor. J.D. Drew probably just got off the tractor and slowly walked back to the house when one of the cows got in the way of the tractor.

Young Stephen remembers playing baseball.

Oh yeah, that's right. This article is supposed to be about Stephen Drew. I almost forgot.

“For me it was great, because J.D. was a really good role model to look up to,’’ said the Sox shortstop. “He had a lot of talent. 

But he had no emotion! Bill Simmons and Dan Shaughnessy know how important it is for a baseball player to throw a temper tantrum and start throwing shit after he strikes out on a close call.

“I could relate to him. I under­stood what was going on. A lot of people didn’t understand. It’s kind of tough. He’s getting criticized and you know what the actual truth is going on. 

The truth is that J.D. Drew is a robot. Don't treat him any differently, world! He's just like you and me. He's a robot farmer from a small town in Georgia who rides a tractor, knows how to play the banjo, but can't feel human emotions. Learn him, don't judge him.

“That, and go out and work hard. That’s what you see. J.D. was quiet. I’m a little more talkative. But we just go about our business kind of the same way. We both like to have fun.’’

In an effort to show off his interviewing prowess, after Stephen Drew has talked for a lengthy amount of time about how he and his brothers grew up and there are quite a few more pertinent follow up questions, Dan Shaughnessy comes back with this question,

Does J.D. ever get mad?

THAT is what Dan Shaughnessy chooses to ask when interviewing Stephen Drew? Drew has touched on his family life growing up, how he relates to his brother, how his brother's experiences in baseball have affected him, and how he is different from J.D. Then Shaughnessy stupidly asks, "Does J.D. ever get mad?" Rookie sideline reporters ask better questions at halftime of a Division II college basketball game.

“Yeah, he gets mad,’’ said Stephen. “Everybody gets mad. But he is very good at being deceptive on that.

He shouldn't be deceptive. He should throw a fit at the plate. That way if J.D. Drew threw a hissy-fit at the plate while arguing a strike call, then Dan Shaughnessy could criticize him for being immature and underachieving. Dan always has a plan. He wants baseball players to screw up so he can destroy them in his column. J.D. Drew never did something immature so Dan couldn't blast him for being immature. It was very frustrating for Dan.

None of the Drew brothers has ever been ejected from a game.
 
“There’s more to life than just baseball,’’ said Stephen. “That’s how we look at it.’’

Translation in Dan Shaughnessy's dictionary: They don't care enough to get ejected from a game.

This was a pretty bad column on Stephen Drew. I don't feel like I learned anything new about him and most of the column consisted of Dan Shaughnessy trying to figure out why J.D. Drew wasn't more emotional and whether Stephen Drew would seem as emotionally disconnected from playing baseball as J.D. Drew seemed. I'm sure Dan thinks he did a great job for the readers of his column. He was passive-aggressive in his questions and also managed to convey very little new knowledge to his readers.

In the next article, Dan talks about how the 2013 Red Sox are just a boring team. Dan bitched about the Red Sox last year because they weren't well put together and didn't win games, but for some reason he forgot to mention how he thought the Red Sox were interesting last year and that was a positive. If he is going to complain the 2013 Red Sox are boring shouldn't he have mentioned how exciting the 2012 team was instead of ripping them at every available opportunity?

The air is warm and fresh. Everybody is in a good mood. Players in the clubhouse are especially relaxed. No one is looking for snitches or rolling their eyes at the mention of the new manager.

There's no drama! How boring is this?

No sign of the ESPN bus. Sox workouts were not featured on live television. There was no daily presence from members of the New York newspapers.

This must be what it feels like covering the Pittsburgh Pirates in Bradenton every spring.

Except for the fact the Pirates have Andrew McCutchen and the Red Sox don't.

Surly, entitled ballplayers have been replaced by stand-up guys. Churl has yielded to character. Larry Lucchino actually said the $170 million Red Sox are a team of “scrappy underdogs.’’

How dare he classify in his team in the way he sees fit. Only Dan Shaughnessy can correctly characterize these bunch of losers.

But here’s the reality, people: The 2013 Red Sox might be really bad. Worse, they might be really boring.

If anyone wants to know the state of the Boston media now, they can look no further than this statement. In the opinion of Dan Shaughnessy it is better for the Red Sox to be bad than it is for them to be boring. It's not about winning games or trying to put a good team on the field for the future, but it is about not being boring. Being entertaining trumps winning. I can think of some other "boring" teams. Teams like the San Francisco Giants, St. Louis Cardinals, and the Texas Rangers are pretty "boring" teams. I guess all of their success over the past couple of years means absolutely very little because they weren't exciting and didn't have daily clubhouse drama to keep up with.

Just don't be boring, that's all Dan Shaughnessy asks. Who cares if the Red Sox win games? Though, of course, not winning games goes hand-in-hand with being "boring." Much like Bill Simmons does, Dan Shaughnessy views a non-competitive (for the World Series) Red Sox team as boring. There's no fun in following a team that isn't a contender every year.

Two weeks and too many hours in the Sox clubhouse left me with a couple of impressions.

Unfortunately these many hours in the Red Sox clubhouse didn't leave the clubhouse with an impression of Shaughnessy's face on any lockers from being shoved face-first into said lockers.

The Sox are a lot more likeable.

But boring. And remember, being boring is worse than being a bad team. The Red Sox have trotted out all sorts of different types of teams over the last decade and few of them have been good enough for Dan Shaughnessy.

Jacoby Ellsbury seems to understand the amusement we have with a player who is marking his final days at Fenway like some guy in Shawshank scratching lines on the wall of his cell.

Dan Shaughnessy is calling a non-competitive (for the World Series) Red Sox team "boring," he bitches when the Red Sox spend money on free agents that don't pan out but also complains when the Red Sox don't spend money on players, and he is making "Shawshank" references...so is Bill Simmons turning into Dan Shaughnessy or has Dan Shaughnessy turned into Bill Simmons? I guess since everyone seems to hate Dan he should probably do all that he can to try to become more popular. Writing like Bill Simmons may be his key to not being hated by everyone. Good luck with that Dan, people will still hate you.

But with one (spring training) game down and seven months to go, it’s apparent that the Sox have more questions than any other team in the American League East. It is difficult to pick them anywhere but last.

If, in fact, things go perfectly, the Red Sox actually could contend for a playoff spot. This is 2013, and five out of 15 make it in each league and it’s almost impossible to play yourself out of contention before August.

So the Red Sox may finish last or they may make the playoffs. It seems like Dan Shaughnessy has every angle covered for however this Red Sox season turns out. If the Red Sox sucks, he knew it would happen, while if the Red Sox make the playoffs, then he knew they had the chance to make the playoffs. It's a tribute to Shaughnessy's lack of writing skill that he can play both sides of this issue and still come off as clueless.

I am going the other way this morning.

Unless the Red Sox make the playoffs, in which case Dan will say he knew the Red Sox could contend for a playoff spot.

Lester is supposed to be the ace, but he is coming back from a 9-14 season in which he gave up more hits than he had innings pitched. Next up is Clay Buchholz, who always looks good but gets hurt a lot; he strained a hamstring in the very first workout of 2013.

That's because Buchholz is a wimp. He's even a boring wimp, which makes his getting injured all that much worse.

Then comes veteran Ryan Dempster, who was cannon fodder when he moved to the American League last year.

Dempster was very good when he played for the Cubs. I realize the Cubs are in the inferior National League and Dempster has played his entire career in the National League, but he was very good the previous three seasons prior to last year. Maybe Dempster sucks, but maybe he makes the Red Sox a more exciting team, which is the ultimate goal of course.

If any of these guys gets hurt (very likely) or don’t work out, the Sox turn to . . . Franklin Morales? . . . the maniacal Alfredo Aceves?

What an excellent and well-thought out criticism of the Red Sox pitching depth. They don't have quality 6th or 7th starters in the organization. This puts them in the same league as nearly every other MLB team who doesn't have a reliable 6th or 7th starter anywhere in the organization. Good looking out Shaughnessy, you've just criticized the 2013 Red Sox team for not having the same luxury few other MLB teams have. What's his next criticism? The Red Sox don't have any All-Star outfielders hanging out on the bench for when (if) Jacoby Ellsbury gets injured?

The bullpen looks strong. Let’s give Ben Cherington some props on the relief corps. Joel Hanrahan looks like a real closer and the Sox were smart to cut their losses with Mark “Schiraldi Eyes” Melancon.

I have a feeling calling a pitcher "Schiraldi Eyes" isn't exactly going to catch on. Of course Dan has to compare one Boston relief pitcher to another because no other relief pitchers outside of Boston have ever looked like disasters in the closer role.

Behind the plate, the Sox have depth, but not enough prime-time quality.

I don't believe a catcher not having enough "prime-time quality" really means anything at all. The Red Sox catchers aren't shooting a television show, so prime-time quality doesn't matter.

There is a connection between the ineffectiveness of Sox starters and the insertion of Jarrod Saltalamacchia into the starting catching role in 2011. Salty has good power, but there is a big hole in his swing (.222 with 139 strikeouts last year).

What? So because Saltalamacchia strikes out a lot the Red Sox pitchers did not pitch very well last year? I'm not sure what Salty's offensive issues had to do with the Red Sox pitchers struggling.

David Ross looks like a solid backup who’ll get plenty of playing time.

Thanks Dan, you should charge at least $5 for in-depth analysis like this. 

We know the Sox are set at second base (Dustin Pedroia) and third base (Will Middlebrooks), but I worry that Middlebrooks will be asked to do too much to protect David Ortiz.

I'm not entirely sure one player "protecting" another player is a real thing. Either way, if Middlebrooks is going to end up being the type of player the Red Sox think he will be then he is going to need to hit in the middle of the order behind Ortiz (or another power hitter) at some point. It may as well be this year.

It might be too much for a kid with only a half-year of big league at-bats.

If a guy can hit major league pitching then he can hit major league pitching. I think Mike Trout, Bryce Harper and various other young players have proven this over the last few seasons.

Victorino looks like a guy whose best days are behind him. Better hope he’s not Kevin Stevens or Joseph Addai.

And of course Shaughnessy has to compare Victorino to two notable busts that were signed by teams from in and around Boston to troll Boston-area fans as well as make sure he stays negative as often as possible. I'm pretty sure Victorino isn't comparable to Kevin Stevens or Joseph Addai, but we all know Dan is secretly hoping Victorino ends up being a complete bust so he can rub it in the face of Red Sox fans.

Finally, it’s tough to feel good about Ortiz. He turns 38 this year, and is coming off an Achilles’ tendon injury — an injury he sustained running the bases in front of an Adrian Gonzalez home run last July.

Adrian Gonzalez actually hit a home run for the Red Sox last year? From what Dan has told us I thought Adrian Gonzalez never hit a home run for the Red Sox and was lucky to not strike out at every at-bat.

Ortiz doesn’t have contract incentive (he finally got his two-year deal, a lifetime achievement award from the Sox),

So does this opinion mean that Dan thought the Red Sox should not have re-signed David Ortiz? Of course not. If the Red Sox had not re-signed Ortiz then Dan would have criticized them for giving up on a Red Sox hero when he could still play at a high level. Dan just likes to bitch and complain. So no matter what the Red Sox did in regard to re-signing David Ortiz or not re-signing him, Dan Shaughnessy would bitch about it. The Red Sox re-sign Ortiz? Well, now he has no incentive and won't be motivated to play. The Red Sox don't re-sign Ortiz? The Red Sox have given up a Red Sox player who could anchor the middle of the lineup.

and he is concerned that the Sox did little to find him lineup protection.

Fortunately, there may not be such a thing. So that's good news.

Sorry. The juice glass is half-empty today.

Just today? The glass is half-empty for Dan everyday.

These guys could be really bad.

Or, as Dan said in this very column, they could make the playoffs. Dan has himself covered to be right either way.

For $170 million, a little more prime-time talent would have been nice.

Yes, but the Red Sox shed salary and are trying to rebuild the team through the farm system and with smart free agent signings. They can't shed their previous salary commitments and then immediately compete all in one year. Of course, asking Dan Shaughnessy to have perspective or take an honest look at what the Red Sox are trying to put together in the future is folly. He's a troll and that's all he knows how to do. Go negative, go negative, troll a little, then go even more negative. That's the formula for making a living from people hating you. 

7 comments MMQB Review: Peter Is Bored and Decides Joe Flacco Will Be a Free Agent Edition

Peter King only brought up Brett Favre twice last week in MMQB, which shows some restraint from how much he would love to talk about Favre. Peter wrapped up the NFL season with stories from the Super Bowl and complained about his trip to New Orleans. Did you know that casinos don't resemble a church at 7am? Did you know the free coffee at a hotel tastes like water and isn't up to Peter's incredibly high standards? If you didn't then, you know these fun little factoids now. This week Peter talks about how if the Ravens don't love Joe Flacco enough (pay him enough because he's elite now, don't you know) then he could be gone in free agency, he still wants Cary Williams to hang for his crimes in the Super Bowl, and re-introduces us to the defensive coordinator Jeff Fisher hired as the Rams defensive coordinator until Fisher decided he was too smart to hire him, Rob Ryan.

Was it only me listening to Baltimore owner Steve Bisciotti and trusted GM Ozzie Newsome the other day, thinking they're going to throw the first big changeup into this offseason?

Yes, it probably was only you was listening to Steve Bisciotti and Ozzie Newsome the other day, thinking they were going to throw a changeup into the offseason. Mostly because you get paid to listen to these guys and then interpret what they are saying. This is how you get paid and otherwise you would just be a middle-aged man writing about football every week in a column read daily by 300-500 people. 

Listening to Bisciotti and Newsome, you'd be a fool to think it's not possible. Probable? No. But look at the tea leaves. The Ravens have until March 4 to sign or put a franchise tag on Flacco, whose rookie contract expired after his heroic postseason run. If they don't sign him to a contract by then, the Ravens have to decide whether to designate Flacco their franchise player or their exclusive-rights franchise player.

I'm not a huge fan of Joe Flacco, but it would be a huge mistake for the Ravens to let him go. Peter King is a pretty gullible sportswriter and he tends to believe things that owners, general managers and head coaches will tell him. In this case, I have to believe the Ravens aren't really going to let Joe Flacco go in free agency and they are just posturing right now in order to get Flacco to be more reasonable with his contract demands. Flacco is smart and knows he is in a good situation in an offense he knows and likes, so the Ravens are trying to posture in order to make it seem like they wouldn't be able to afford him if he demands too large of a contract. So yes, I believe Peter is swallowing hook, line, and sinker what the Ravens are wanting him to report. It's nice to have a gullible media member to help you in contract negotiations with your star quarterback.

Hey, maybe the Ravens are serious about not re-signing Flacco, but I think it is more likely the Ravens are making public comments like this is the direction they could go in an attempt to get the media to pick it up and report on it. It seems like a negotiation ploy to me.

It has been presumed that if the Ravens can't sign Flacco before the March 4 franchise-tagging deadline that they'd exercise the exclusive tag. That would mean committing a $20 million guaranteed salary -- with another $24 million due Flacco in 2014 if Baltimore had to exercise a tag again next year. Two years, $44 million ... significantly more than Drew Brees, Peyton Manning and Tom Brady make now. The regular franchise tag for quarterbacks, meanwhile, is $14.5 million.

It seems to me like it would be very, very likely the Ravens would put the franchise tag on Flacco if they can't reach a contract agreement with him. This allows them to match the offer to Flacco and if they can't match the offer then they get two first round draft picks when/if another team signs Flacco. It seems like the logical move for them. 

Bisciotti: "We've proven it two years in a row that we can kind of shock the world and disappoint our fans at the same time, by letting some of these guys go, but letting young guys fill in and then going out and getting good values on the free-agent market.''

I believe Peter is reading this incorrectly. Bisciotti is saying the Ravens aren't going to re-sign aging players who want a lot of money and may start to decline over the length of their next contract. He's talking about Ed Reed and players like Reed. There is a reason I feel Newsome and Bisciotti aren't talking about Flacco. Joe Flacco is a quarterback, and you don't dump your under-30 Super Bowl winning quarterback in order to find a "good value" on the free agent market. There are rarely good values on the free agent market when it comes to quarterbacks. Flacco is a young guy and the quarterback position isn't a spot on the roster a team should mess around with finding "good values."

We're trying to build where we can win Super Bowls more than just one more time. I think our team is structured differently this time also. We do have some veterans that will probably be retiring but we have a great nucleus of young players and players that are just heading into their prime that we're going to build this team around.''

So "goodbye Ed Reed" is how I read this. Joe Flacco is a part of the nucleus the Ravens want to build around. I can't fathom a situation where the Ravens dump the "veteran" Flacco because there is another quarterback they want to build the team around. That is unless the entire front office is on drugs and are really excited to build around the read-option capabilities of Tyrod Taylor at the expense of losing Flacco.

Would the Ravens dare let Flacco go -- to Cleveland, in the division, to a bitter rival, or to another team like Buffalo or Arizona?

No, they would not let that happen. These comments weren't directed at Flacco and even if they were they were all a part of contract posturing. I don't think Flacco is one of the players the Ravens don't care to build around. Peter is reading these comments all wrong.

Would the Ravens be confident enough in their ability to retool on the fly with two extra first-rounders to deal for Alex Smith, let's say, and throw the gauntlet down and say to the Browns: Go ahead and take Flacco; we'll beat you anyway?

What is Peter's obsession with Alex Smith and NFL teams signing Smith for a year or two and then finding another quarterback? It's not like Smith is 33 years old. If a team wants to sign him, he's the quarterback of the future and the now, not an aging quarterback who only has a couple of good years left in him. I can see the Ravens franchising Flacco, but I don't see there being an outright plan to franchise him only to sign Alex Smith and then get two first round picks when another team signs Flacco. I can't believe this is the Ravens plan or would be an option for the Ravens.

Flacco is 28. He is at the peak of his earning potential right now, coming off an incredible postseason (4-0, 11 touchdowns, no interceptions). He is a principled guy. It'd be interesting to see how he'd react if no team stepped up with an offer sheet and he had to return to the Ravens to play in 2013 for significantly less than he was offered last offseason by the club -- and before he became Joe Clutch in January and February. He would not be pleased. What would that mean? A holdout? Rancor of some other sort? I don't know. But playing for $14.5 million would not make Flacco happy.

Which is why a long-term deal is going to get done. I think we can absolutely count on this happening. The Ravens are (a) not talking about Flacco when discussing the youth movement and (b) simply posturing in negotiations even if they were talking about Flacco. They are not going to let him go in free agency as long as they can help it.

But think of the shot of adrenalin for the Browns, if they could rip away Flacco from a team they despise. What sweet irony for Cleveland, to steal the Super Bowl-winning quarterback from the team that stole their franchise.

It makes for a really cool narrative and story, but that's all this really is. It's a fun story that Peter can talk about to kill time. The Browns may want Flacco, but I doubt they have a realistic shot at getting him.

imagine Cleveland signing Flacco for five years and $110 million, making him the highest-paid player in history. And say Cleveland makes the 2013 salary $35 million. That way it'd be almost impossible for Baltimore to match; if the Ravens balked at $20 million per, you think they'd accede to $35 million in Year 1?

This is all a fake scenario that is fun to talk about when there is no football being played. It's entirely speculative and only manages to kill space in MMQB.

So in my scenario, Baltimore passes on matching. Then the Ravens take the sixth pick in the 2013 first round and fortify the aging defense with the best linebacker or pass-rusher. Then, I'd assume, the Ravens would try to acquire a veteran quarterback in exchange for a mid-round pick (Alex Smith?) or a late-round pick (Matt Flynn?) and also draft a rookie, so that there would be two QBs in camp to compete with Tyrod Taylor for the starting job. The Ravens with two addition first-round picks over the next two drafts ... a dangerous proposition considering what a strong personnel and scouting staff Newsome oversees.

OR, and just bear with me here, the Ravens could ensure they have a decently competent quarterback for the next five years and re-sign Flacco, not have to trade any draft picks for backups or worry about the quarterback position in any way over the next half-decade, and use their draft picks and strong personnel and scouting staff to draft good young players in order to replace the aging ones they aren't re-signing. I don't know, my suggestions seems a bit less risky and more probable.

Then there's the issue of whether Flacco would want to leave. He wouldn't; I can promise you that. But he would if he felt he'd made a fair proposal to the Ravens and they turned it down.

And further down the rabbit hole we go...

One more thing about what Bisciotti and Newsome implied the other day. Committing a cap number of $20 million to Flacco this year would cut off the ability to franchise any other players in the next two years -- like much-needed linebacker Dannell Ellerbe or pass-rusher Paul Kruger this year -- and it hamstrings the ability of the team to make smart football decisions over the next two years.

No offense to Dannell Ellerbe or Paul Kruger, but if they choose not to re-sign with Baltimore over the next couple of years then I think it would be worth it to have kept Flacco around. I'm not sold that Flacco is a top-5 quarterback in the NFL, but an NFL team simply can't discard their quarterback without a competent quarterback already in place. There are no "franchise" quarterbacks supposedly in this draft, trading for Matt Flynn or Alex Smith seems uninspired at best, and losing Flacco would be a huge loss to the morale of the Ravens team. Maybe the whole speech by Newsome and Bisciotti is an explanation as to why they will re-sign Flacco and rely on younger players over the next few years as opposed to re-signing guys like Ellerbe or Kruger?

Exclusive-tagging Flacco would likely, but not certainly, mean the losses of Ellerbe and Kruger and the iconic Ed Reed, and maybe even Anquan Boldin if he won't lower his $7.5 million salary for 2013. Reed's understandable. Losing two of the others, or all three, would be major blows.

Contracts can be re-worked and the Ravens can find other way to free up money for Ellerbe and Kruger over the next couple of years. They have time and they can have a way to find the money. Maybe Anquan Boldin was one of the players Newsome and Bisciotti were talking about in reference to players who are veterans and may have to find a job elsewhere. That seems somewhat likely to be true.

It's a big gamble. If you're a Ravens' fans, you have to hope it doesn't come to that -- and that Linta and Moriarty can get a long-term deal in the next three weeks.

As a Ravens fan why would someone hope it doesn't come to this? After all, the Ravens can trade for Alex Smith or Matt Flynn to compete with Tyrod Taylor AND have two first round draft picks. Wasn't Peter just telling us what a great option this may be?

Regarding Gregg Williams taking an assistant's job with Tennessee: Question anyone giving Williams a job; that's fine. But why the rancor over letting a man who served his time be reinstated? Williams was suspended indefinitely in 2012 and told his reinstatement would be considered after no less than a season if he cooperated with the NFL's investigation (he did), and if he actively participated in spreading the word about sportsmanship and how dangerous bounties are. Williams spoke to at least 23 football teams and youth sports group while suspended. So what merit would there be to ban him for longer than a year? (In fairness, I must disclose that I am represented by the same agent as Williams -- Marvin Demoff -- so if that colors what you think of my opinion, so be it. I have not spoken to Williams since well before his ban.)

I don't believe Peter King has an agenda with Gregg Williams, but it seems natural that he would pump up his agent's clients whether it be intentionally or unintentionally. Just remember this next year when Peter has the Rams winning the NFC West and making the Super Bowl. Actually, Peter may just not predict good things for the Rams, but continuously tell us how they are on the right track. Doesn't Peter have the same agent as Jeff Fisher? I don't remember him ever disclosing this, but maybe he felt like he never needed to.

Tell you who I think would be a great fit for Baltimore at 32 in round one, if he's there: inside linebacker Manti Te'o

Yes, IF Te'o is there at #32 in round one. There's a chance he may just be a ghost or not even exist at that point in the draft.

Other potential big spenders: Indianapolis ($46 million under), Miami ($47 million under), Tampa Bay ($31 million under). Ryan Grigson, the Colts GM, with real money to spend? Dangerous proposition.

Call me crazy, but I think it is somewhat dangerous for teams with money to spend to spend that money. The urge to overpay for players or outbid another team in order to acquire a player they like, simply because they have the money to do so, seems really great to me. Obviously it is very good to have cap room, but it's very dangerous for NFL teams to have money in their pocket and big plans to spend it in free agency. That's how players get overpaid. Now, Ryan Grigson may not do this, but the fans see the Colts have $46 million in cap space and they expect the team to spend a good portion of that money. This is how Ray Maualuga could get $40 million in free agency this year, teams with cap space and an overriding urge to spend this cap space will offer him that much money.

One GM told me the most intriguing free agents on the board are Philadelphia cornerback Nnamdi Asomugha and Cincinnati tackle Andre Smith.

Oh boy, here goes Peter King talking up Nnamdi Asomugha once again. Let me guess, the Jets are interested in him or is it the Patriots? We all know Asomugha is one of the most coveted free agents in the history of free agency because one GM told Peter he was "intriguing." I still recall Asomugha's free agency two years ago when he eventually signed with the Eagles. Peter treated Asomugha as the most important free agent since Reggie White.

Logical, I suppose, that the Saints, likely to switch to a 3-4 defense, would take the most available 3-4 coordinator to coach. Ryan won out over Todd Grantham and Romeo Crennel. But I've started to wonder about Ryan in recent years.

What Peter means is that he wondered about Rob Ryan once he stopped just assuming Ryan was a defensive genius and he actually did some research into how well Rob Ryan's defenses tend to play. If Ryan's name was Rob Harris then he would be an unemployed defensive coordinator or coaching linebackers somewhere, not getting multiple opportunities to be an NFL defensive coordinator.

Last year he had to overcome tremendous injuries with Dallas, so you can excuse a mediocre season there. But in nine years in Oakland, Cleveland and Dallas, he's had a top-10 defense only once, in terms of yards allowed. In scoring defense, Ryan has never coached a top-10 defense.

Well, that's because Ryan has never worked for a really good NFL team. How do expect him to do coaching in Oakland and Cleveland? It's not his job to make these teams and their defenses better. That's the head coach's job. It's Rob Ryan's job to coast off his last name until someone finally recognizes him for the genius that he is and offers him a head coaching job.

His teams' sack production was better than the yardage or scoring numbers, four times ranking between sixth and ninth in average sacks per offensive play.

For fear of sounding too much like Gregg Easterbrook, it seems Rob Ryan's defenses tend to be good at the creating sacks and appearing to be very capable, but statistically this isn't true.

What can Saints' fans expect from Ryan? Well, there's no place to go but up; New Orleans allowed more yards in 2012 than any other NFL team in history. But his record in his first year has been mixed. Oakland was the 30th-rated defense in yards allowed in 2003 and finished 30th in Ryan's first season, 2004. Cleveland was 26th the year before Ryan arrived and 31st in his first year, 2009. Dallas was 23rd overall in 2010 and Ryan got the Cowboys to 14th in 2011.

The good news for the Saints is they can't go any lower than 32nd in the NFL in total yards. So that's a positive, right?

I will top my Tuesday column with an analysis of the 49ers offense and how offensive coordinator Greg Roman is coping with the pain of the last drive of the season -- four downs that netted jut two yards from the Baltimore seven-yard line and handed the Ravens the 34-31 victory. The play calling's interesting enough. The 54 different alignments in 60 offensive snaps portend good things for the Niners' future.

You may say, "Why does using different alignments mean good things are in the 49ers' future?" Because I'm guessing next year NFL teams will get extra points for using many different alignments during a game. 54 different alignments in one game. If a team uses 10 different alignments in a game they get an extra two points, so this would have been a whole 10 extra points for the 49ers because they used different alignments during the Super Bowl. 

Think Jim Caldwell was good for Joe Flacco? Check out the 13 Baltimore games before Caldwell was named offensive coordinator, and the seven games he worked as Flacco's offensive coordinator:

Jim Caldwell: Possibly a really good offensive coordinator. Let's leave it at that for now.

So as much as it was a painful move for John Harbaugh to change from Cameron to Caldwell with three games left in the regular season, it was obviously the right move.

Gregg Easterbrook still thinks John Harbaugh did it to transfer blame off of him when the Ravens flamed out in the playoffs. Despite the fact this makes absolutely no sense and to fire the offensive coordinator would only serve to put more attention on Harbaugh's coaching personnel decisions and how the Ravens performed in the playoffs, this is what Gregg claimed.

Mr. Starwood Preferred Member Travel Note of the Week

I'm not much of an airport fan. Airports are things you cope with; you don't enjoy them. Except in cases where you're pleasantly surprised, the way I was last Monday.

Everything worked out perfectly for Peter and there was no minor inconveniences that normal people usually ignore when traveling that totally ruined Peter's entire trip. Peter loves it when everyone gets out of his way, the free coffee is tasty, and people in a crowd are minding their own business so that Peter can go about critiquing their lives and criticizing what they do in public. If more people would mind their own business so Peter can criticize these people for minding their own business then this world would be a better place.

But I'm a Super Bowl veteran, and I know when the airport is in a smaller city like New Orleans, the day-after is going to be total mayhem, with long security lines and every seat taken on every flight out of town. That increases the chance of getting that dreaded middle seat in coach, the seat that, if an airline president were ever to be sentenced to one for a two- or three-hour flight, he'd surely ban them or risk burning in hell on judgment day.

Why can't Peter have his own private plane for travel use, NBC/Sports Illustrated? Your answer will never satisfy Peter because he knows he deserves to be on his own plane where he can watch "Seinfeld" re-runs while listening to U2 and staring at Brett Favre posters circa-1997 that line the cabin and stare back at him while he drinks his free Starbucks coffee and Meryl Streep acts out every role she has ever played just for him. That's all Peter asks. Don't say it is too much, because it isn't.

I had flown out of the Gulfport-Biloxi International Airport in southern Mississippi before, and I figured, "Who would think to fly out of there on the day after the Super Bowl?'' A few savvy travelers, but most would either fly Monday out of New Orleans or wait to Tuesday to get a flight from New Orleans.

Plus, there is always something to do in southern Mississippi if someone gets bored. If only there were someone to visit in southern Mississippi, then that probably cemented Peter's decision to fly out of southern Mississippi. I wonder if there was someone that Peter knows really well and he may or may not have a borderline obsession with...but I can't think of any cities in southern Mississippi that would be near any ex-Packer quarterback and his home, do you? 

The difference in travel time -- 76 miles from my New Orleans hotel to Gulfport-Biloxi, 13 to the New Orleans airport -- would be made up, I hoped, by no lines and maybe even some room on the plane.

We know why you really went to southern Mississippi, Peter. Brett Favre is the reason. Less traffic as compared to the New Orleans airport was just an added bonus. Don't try to fool us.

The trip took 70 minutes. I walked the keys for the rental car 50 yards to the rental counter inside the terminal. I checked my two bags at Delta in two minutes. The kiosk spat out the heavenly upgrades from coach to business on both legs of the Gulfport-to-Atlanta and Atlanta-to-LaGuardia.

Upgrades? Finally there is an airport that treats Peter King like the royalty he knows himself to be!

Twenty-nine Super Bowls. Best postgame Monday of them all.

A little special Favre-time will do that to Peter.

"how do you fine Bill B for grabbing an official to ask a question and not fine a player for shoving one?"

-- @JamesPGerry, a fan, after a league official said Saturday Ravens cornerback Cary Williams would not be fined for two-hand shoving the head linesman in the Super Bowl. He referred to the $50,000 fine Patriots coach Bill Belichick got in Week 3 for attempting to grab an official at the end of a game to ask him a question when the official wouldn't stop.

Anyone with half an eye could see that the two-hand shove of the official was a far more egregious offense than the grabbing of an official after a game.

Peter is absolutely outraged that Cary Williams wasn't hung for shoving the head linesman in the Super Bowl. I guess the moral of this story is that if you are going to bump into an official or shove an official then you should do this during the Super Bowl.

Ten Things I Think I Think

1. I think no matter what the NFL's explanation for not fining Baltimore cornerback Cary Williams for his two-handed shove of 11-year-veteran head linesman Steve Stelljes in the Super Bowl -- most likely his "reasoning'' that he was enraged getting up from a pile and didn't know he was shoving an official -- it will be weak and flimsy. In a league in which Frank Gore gets a $10,500 fine for wearing his socks too low in the NFC Championship Game and Bill Belichick gets docked $50,000 for grabbing an official (and not holding on),

Peter feels very strongly about this issue. Cam Newton got fined $21,000 for fining an official as well, so Cary Williams definitely deserved at least a fine. Still, it doesn't matter at this point and Peter needs to move on.

2. I think of all the controversial decisions the NFL has made this year, the one to not fine or sanction Williams is the easiest to rip. It's wrong on 77 levels.

Holy shit, just drop it. It's over. Williams should have gotten fined or ejected from the game. He didn't. Somehow we all manage to move on. You should too. 

The NFL has just said that it's OK, in the heat of the moment, for a player to put both hands on an official and shove him back angrily. I would love to be a lawyer next year when a player touches an official and is fined. That'll be the easiest appeal ever -- and if I lose, I just go to the media and show both incidents and say, "What bureaucratic nimrod dispensed this kind of justice?"

Then Roger Goodell and the NFL will ignore this question and go back to ruling the world.

3. I think, by the way, that if it were Ndamukong Suh who shoved the head linesman in the Super Bowl, he would be lucky if his punishment were being suspended for the first game of the 2013 season and nothing more. 

Can you tell it is the first week of the offseason? Officials getting shoved take up the first three parts of what "Peter thinks he thinks."

5. I think this is a sentence I never thought I'd write in my life: Joe Flacco went to the Tommy Hilfiger Fashion Show at Fashion Week in Manhattan the other day.

You didn't have to write the sentence, mostly because this is a shockingly uninteresting fact.

6. I think that's what a good husband does. Flacco and wife Dana did the hang-out-with-Hilfiger thing. There's a good chance Joe would have liked to be an ordinary Joe that day, but why not treat your wife to a front-row seat for one of the big shows on the runway in New York?

Plus, since he is going to be a free agent and the Ravens aren't going to re-sign him then he needs to make sure his wife sees other cities outside of Baltimore so they can make an educated decision on where to sign once the Ravens don't re-sign him.

8. I think ProFootballTalk made a great point Saturday about one aspect of the free-agent market: the tackle conundrum. There are so many good ones who will be free -- Jake Long, Brandon Albert, Andre Smith, Jermon Bushrod, Ryan Clady (likely to be franchised), Sebastian Vollmer and Sam Baker -- that the value will go down. Teams can likely to get a good tackle for $7 million or $8 million a year if they're patient.

ProFootballTalk made this great point. Now ProFootballTalk will put in the "Rumor Mill" that Peter King agreed with their point and report on Peter's report on PFT's report. So NBC has some really great synergy going where each respective arm of their sports division are working together to report a story, produce corroborating agreement with the story and then report on the report of the corroborating agreement. I love good corporate synergy.

d. Watching the blizzard coverage on TV in New York Friday, I was sure thousands would be killed by the crush of snowflakes. Then I woke up Saturday, put on the TV, and saw pretty much the most common thing that happened in the Tri-State Area was that people were going to have to shovel for four hours.

e. We do tend to overreact to weather in this country.

"We tend to overreact to silly things like the weat---(Peter raises his coffee cup to his lips and begins to take a sip) What the fuck? Why the hell does this hotel coffee taste like crap? I will never stay in your hotel again Marriott. It's 6:30am and I can't get any decent coffee? What kind of world do we live in when hotels can't make decent coffee for weary travelers? This is a convenience that everyone should be provided by a hotel and I'm pretty sure 'access to good, free coffee' was in the Bill of Rights."

(Peter King opens up his computer, walks to a brothel and starts writing MMQB for three hours while complaining about the quality of people who surround him)

f. Got sick when I got home from the Super Bowl. Got reacquainted with Luden's cough drops. What's better than a Luden's cough drop? Almost makes you want to have a sore throat.

Really, these cough drops make you want to be sick? You have no brains for brains.

h. Beernerdness: Strand me on a desert isle

Gladly. Done.

with Lazy Magnolia Southern Pecan brown ale, and I'll be just fine.

You read what he wrote NBC/Sports Illustrated. Peter wants to be stranded on a desert isle. You gave him a van last summer for his Training Camp tour. It only seems right you strand him on a desert isle like he asks.

j. My wife hates to play me in Monopoly because it brings out the sick competitor in me. And God help you if you don't give me the iron as my token.

So Peter has a history of pouting and getting upset when he doesn't get something exactly the way he wants it? You don't say.

The Adieu Haiku

Here comes the Combine.
Time to overrate college kids.
Stay sane, Mike Mayock.

You know what? Let's be really nice to Peter. Let's strand him on a desert isle with Lazy Magnolia Southern Pecan brown ale AND Monopoly. That seems fair and kind enough.