I probably use the word "overrated" a lot to the point my use of the word is a bit overrated. I think NFL free agency is really overrated though. I mean this and am not using hyperbole. Maybe NFL free agency as a whole isn't overrated, but the teams that make the biggest splashes with the biggest signings aren't usually teams that end up winning the Super Bowl that next season. Free agency seems to be an inefficient market where players are being paid for past performance and one bidder can drive the player's price up sky high. Smart teams spend smartly in free agency. Spending smartly means choosing players who fill in some holes on the current roster prior to the draft, while using the draft to fill in the rest of the holes on the roster. I still think the draft is the best way to build a successful team in the long-term. Spending big in free agency and rewarding teams with high grades who spend big in free agency is a fool's errand in my opinion. So here some grades from the NFL free agency period. They are purely subjective and seem to be pretty pointless.
Now we'll explore how the teams have done in free agency and
assign them each a grade of either pass or fail. We came to this
conclusion for a variety of reasons—none more important than if the team is better than it was at the end of the 2014 season.
And of course it makes total sense to judge a team on whether they are better after free agency than they were at the end of the 2014 season, especially since the NFL Draft hasn't even happened yet. Improving is an offseason-long process, not something that just happens after free agency is over.
We also included factors such as quality of players signed,
if their own important free agents stayed and how many good players
defected.
And this is all subjective of course. The author decides which players are "good" that defected and which free agents for a team were "important." Mostly though, the author uses personnel moves the team made outside of free agency as the basis for his grade in this slideshow where the supposed intent is to hand out grades based on only free agency.
Let's start the slideshow!
Arizona Cardinals: PASS
General manager Steve Keim was able to restructure the contract of star receiver Larry Fitzgerald,
and the 31-year-old pass-catcher should now complete his Hall of Fame
career in the desert. Keeping Fitzgerald in the fold was a wise move; while he's not the player he once was, he's still capable of getting the job done.
I really don't think this should be a part of the grade. Fitzgerald wasn't a free agent and his contract was restructured. Bleacher Report makes their own rules though.
They did lose longtime defensive tackle Darnell Dockett (released and
signed with San Francisco), his battery-mate Dan Williams and cornerback
Antonio Cromartie, but the club should be able to overcome those
losses.
How can they overcome these losses when the author didn't list a single DT or CB signed by the Cardinals? Who cares? The Cardinals shall overcome these losses with great force of will.
Right now, the Cardinals offseason gets a slight pass. But if they can
acquire a game-changing running back in either the draft (Todd Gurley?)
or via trade (Adrian Peterson?), it will skyrocket to an unreserved pass.
So if the Cardinals draft a running back or trade for one then their grade on how well they did in free agency will get much higher? So teams can get a higher grade for their free agency moves by making moves outside of free agency? This doesn't really make sense.
Atlanta Falcons: PASS
In that search, the club imported a number of free agents to Hotlanta:
pass-rushing linebacker Brooks Reed, defensive end Adrian Clayborn and
tight end Jacob Tamme among them. Tamme should provide quarterback Matt Ryan with a reliable target over the middle,
He's 30 and had 14 catches on 28 targets for 109 yards last year. He's never been very good when Peyton Manning isn't throwing him the ball. Maybe my definition of "reliable" is different from the author's definition.
while Reed and Clayborn will be counted on to provide much-needed pass-rushing oomph.
Clayborn had 1 tackle last year in one game and has 13 sacks over a four year career. Brooks Reed has 14.5 sacks on his four year career and has 3 sacks last season. They may work out, but apparently signing pass rushers, no matter how good they are gets a passing grade.
Dimitroff also re-signed running back Antone Smith, who is a threat to score every time he touches the ball,
7 career touchdowns in five years. Maybe he should touch the ball more.
The Falcons most notably lost receiver Harry Douglas and linebacker Sean
Weatherspoon, but those aren't earth-shattering defections.
The author gives credit to the Cardinals for signing Weatherspoon, but doesn't seem concerned the Falcons lost Weatherspoon to the Cardinals. Sure, consistency be damned.
Baltimore Ravens: FAIL
The Baltimore Ravens' 2014 season ended in heartbreaking fashion at the hands of the eventual Super Bowl champion Patriots—and it doesn't currently appear that the team is better than it was on that fateful Saturday in January.
If only there were a way for the Ravens to improve their team by choosing players who played college football last year through an organized selection process. It could be called "the draft." But alas, there is no such thing so the Ravens haven't improved their team and probably never will improve the team prior to the season starting.
Buffalo Bills: PASS
And Ryan hasn't disappointed in his first few months on the job, as the
Bills made a gigantic splash, trading linebacker Kiko Alonso for Eagles
running back LeSean McCoy in a true stunner. McCoy is a nice fit in
Ryan's ground-and-pound offensive philosophy, and it can be reasoned
that Ryan's defense can operate at a high level of efficiency without
Alonso.
McCoy was acquired in a trade and not through free agency, dumbass. So on a list of grades for NFL teams the McCoy acquisition wouldn't count because he wasn't acquired through free agency.
And although the club overpaid for tight end Charles Clay
(five years, $38 million with $24.5 million guaranteed), he should
instantly improve the passing attack. Mercurial wide receiver Percy Harvin also came in on a one-year, low-risk deal.
Sure, the author thinks the Bills overpaid, but that's how you win Super Bowls. Overpay for players through free agency. It's a proven way to win, just ask the Tampa Bay Buccaneers.
Carolina Panthers: FAIL
Despite winning back-to-back NFC South championships, the Carolina Panthers have a number of roster holes to fill—and they definitely haven't filled them just yet.
If only there were an NFL Draft! Why hasn't this happened yet? Teams need a way to fill needs on their roster after free agency is over. Where are college football players expected to go after their eligibility runs out? To Canada to play football?
but trying to improve the team's pass protection by signing tackle
Michael Oher isn't going to do the trick. Bringing back wide receiver
and kick returner Ted Ginn Jr. is nice, but it isn't going to move the
meter.
I didn't know the grade was partly on "moving the meter," as opposed to how upgrading from one of the worst left tackles in the NFL and improving the 31st ranked special teams would improve a team's grade.
Meanwhile, longtime running back DeAngelo Williams was released and signed with Pittsburgh,
He was the third-string back at the end of the year.
While it's hard to criticize Gettleman for letting go of Hardy—who was limited to one game last season due to charges stemming from a domestic violence case—Hardy is definitely a major talent who can get after the opposing quarterback.
And yet, the Panthers somehow managed to have a good pass rush without Greg Hardy last year. But sure, the fact Hardy wasn't on the team in 2014 should be factored into how the team is now worse without him on the team in 2015.
Chicago Bears: FAIL
The Chicago Bears have a new coach (John Fox) and general manager (Ryan Pace)—but unfortunately for them, the quarterback (Jay Cutler) remains the same, so it's hard to issue them a passing grade.
So because the Bears didn't trade Jay Cutler, a move that would have nothing to do with free agency, then it's hard to give them a good grade for their free agent moves? This makes not of sense.
Cutler is the albatross slung around the franchise's neck, with his bloated contract
and atrocious body language weighing down the entire operation. It's
hard to criticize Fox and Pace for being unable to jettison Cutler from
the roster, but finding a way to do so would have been a significant
boon.
So the author finds it hard to criticize the Bears for not trading Cutler, but he'll give them a failing grade for not doing so. Sure, makes sense in Crazy Land.
The Bears might be in good hands for the future, but the team earns a failing grade thus far.
What? Ryan Pace can only be judged so far on the job he has done in free agency. The author thinks the Bears are in good hands because Ryan Pace is the Bears' GM, yet he thinks the only thing Pace has done since becoming GM was a failure. So why does the author think the Bears are in good hands again?
Cleveland Browns: FAIL
While coach Mike Pettine and general manager Ray Farmer can't be blamed
for the yearlong suspension of receiver Josh Gordon and the rehab stint
of quarterback Johnny Manziel, those events still hurt the club and must be taken into account in the overall grade.
NO, NO, NO. No, Johnny Manziel entering rehab should NOT be taken into account when giving the Browns a grade for how well they did in free agency. Manziel entering rehab has nothing to do with the Browns and their performance in free agency. Nothing. Nada. Zilch. This cheap ass slideshow is supposed to be about grades for a team's performance in free agency, which has nothing to do with the drafting of Johnny Manziel or the suspension of Josh Gordon.
The Browns are surely a worse team now than at the start of the free-agent period.
Every NFL team can't fix all the holes they have on the roster through free agency. That's why there is an NFL Draft. Why must the author be so dumb and expect teams to fix all their holes in free agency?
Dallas Cowboys: FAIL
Owner Jerry Jones brought back Bryant with the franchise tag, which was the right move—of
the two (Bryant and Murray), Bryant is the more valuable player. But
there can be no denying that Jones and the Cowboys made a Texas-sized
bungle allowing Murray to sign with the rival Eagles.
Nope, there can be no denying that handing DeMarco Murray the amount of money he wanted in free agency could have been a Texas-sized bungle. Running backs are being devalued and a running back like Murray who has been healthy for two seasons since he left high school isn't necessarily the smartest investment.
Murray's defection leaves a major hole in Dallas' run game, as there's no way the pu pu platter of Darren McFadden,
Joseph Randle and Lance Dunbar can replace him. While it's possible
Jones will make a splashy play in the draft (Melvin Gordon?) or via
trade (Adrian Peterson?), that position—once one of strength—looms as a disaster.
A "pu pu platter"? Thanks, Bill Simmons.
Notice how the Cardinals haven't taken care of their running game, but that's perfectly fine with the author. Who cares? Meanwhile, the Cowboys have (on paper) a weak running game and this of course is a disaster waiting to happen. Weird how that works.
Denver Broncos: PASS
Regardless of whichever players the Denver Broncos signed or lost in
free agency, the whole rigmarole must be considered a success. And
that's for one reason and one reason only: Quarterback Peyton Manning is returning to the team for a fourth season in the Mile High City.
THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH FREE AGENCY!
The Broncos brought in tight end Owen Daniels to rejoin new head coach
Gary Kubiak, but they lost tight end Julius Thomas, guard Orlando
Franklin, defensive tackle Terrance Knighton and safety Rahim Moore.
Those are talented players to lose, but general manager John Elway has
assembled a talented roster that can overcome those defections.
Oh that's great to know. I didn't know that Owen Daniels was a Pro Bowl tight end. I guess he is.
And, as we've already stated, it all starts and ends with Manning. Since he's back, the Broncos earn a passing grade.
The Broncos get a passing grade in free agency based entirely on a move that was made, that wasn't even a move the team really made, which had nothing to do with free agency. Typical Bleacher Report.
Detroit Lions: FAIL
He says the Lions failed mainly because they didn't sign Ndamukong Suh and let Nick Fairley go. Fairley underachieved and the Lions dodged a huge bullet by not keeping Suh's contract on the books and allowing him to sign a bloated contract the Dolphins will eventually come to regret. I LOVE Ndamukong Suh, but the Lions won free agency by not re-signing him or letting his cap figure take over their salary cap.
Houston Texans: PASS
Coach Bill O'Brien and general manager Rick Smith needed an upgrade at
the quarterback position, and they got just that when the signed Brian
Hoyer away from Cleveland.
Browns fans snicker a little bit.
Bringing back cornerback Kareem Jackson was a wise move, and notable
imports include safety Rahim Moore, wide receiver Cecil Shorts and
defensive tackle Vince Wilfork, the latter of whom brings a championship
pedigree to H-Town.
Much like the championship pedigree that Ed Reed brought to the Texans until he was cut prior to concluding his first season with the team?
Kansas City Chiefs: PASS
So the Chiefs do deserve credit for bringing in speedy wideout Jeremy Maclin from Philadelphia—even though they overpaid (five years, $55 million) for him.
And really, what's the point of signing a guy in free agency if you aren't going to overpay for him? There's no fun in making a big splash if there can't be a little financial irresponsibility that goes along with it.
While receiver Dwayne Bowe and center Rodney Hudson are now
ex-Chiefs, the signing of Maclin is enough to give Kansas City a passing
grade.
The Chiefs got a passing grade because simply because they overpaid for a wide receiver (and the Jaguars also got a "Pass" grade for signing Julius Thomas). It's almost like the author favors making a big splash over a team not spending salary cap space on players who could help the team but also aren't smart financial signings.
Miami Dolphins: PASS
Any time you can sign one of the best three free agents in the history
of the NFL, you earn a passing grade. The Miami Dolphins did just that.
Okay, you are going to have to calm the fuck down. Suh is a great player and the top free agent available but the Dolphins paid him like a franchise quarterback. It's great that Suh is a wanted free agent, but the Dolphins will regret his contract and you can write that down with a chisel in stone. Suh will produce for the Dolphins, but his contract will continue to give the team problems.
Along with Reggie White (1993) and Peyton Manning (2012), Ndamukong Suh
completed the holy trinity of free agents, and his decision to go to
Miami could have a major impact on the AFC playoff picture.
Peter King wants to know where Nnamdi Asomugha fits into that trinity.
New Dolphins Executive Vice President of Football Operations Mike
Tannenbaum has done a great job cleaning up mistakes from deposed
general manager Jeff Ireland, headlined by his trade of underachieving
(and overpaid) receiver Mike Wallace (along with a seventh-round pick) for a fifth-round pick in this year's draft.
He cleaned up Ireland's mistakes by overpaying for another free agent. Brilliant move. It is the equivalent of cleaning a toilet using asbestos as the cleaning agent. Boy, it sure looks clean until you realize a few years later you just caused a whole new set of problems for yourself.
Trading for Saints receiver Kenny Stills was an underrated move that should pay immediate dividends.
That was a trade and not free agency. Stop judging NFL teams on moves they made that weren't moves made in free agency. If this slideshow is supposed to be about how teams did in free agency, then stick to moves these teams made in free agency.
Minnesota Vikings: PASS
But until the uncertainty surrounding running back Adrian Peterson's
status is resolved, it's difficult to assign a definite pass or fail to
the Vikings.
Adrian Peterson is currently a player on the Vikings roster. He is not a free agent. Whether he is going to be traded, he'll retire, or assume a new identify and try to enter the draft as Adam Patterson, his status has zero to do with what the Vikings' grade should be for their free agent moves. Stop judging NFL teams' free agent moves based upon moves they made that weren't made in free agency.
New Orleans Saints: FAIL
While re-signing running back Mark Ingram and bringing in cornerback
Brandon Browner and speedy back C.J. Spiller all qualify as positive
moves, the Saints remain in a world of financial hurt, and losing Graham
makes this an easy call for a failing grade.
Jimmy Graham was traded. TRADED to the Seahawks. This isn't a move in free agency and shouldn't have anything to do with the grade. Here is what the author stated his grade would be based upon:
Now we'll explore how the teams have done in free agency and
assign them each a grade of either pass or fail. We came to this
conclusion for a variety of reasons—none more important than if the team is better than it was at the end of the 2014 season.
We also included factors such as quality of players signed,
if their own important free agents stayed and how many good players
defected.
Do you see anywhere in there where it says, "We will also include any personnel moves these teams have made since the end of the season"? No? Because it's not there and all of the language has to do with the grade being based upon the moves these teams made in free agency. Yet, here we are again...Jimmy Graham was traded so the Saints get a failing grade in free agency.
New York Giants: PASS
While general manager Jerry Reese overpaid
for special teams ace Dwayne Harris, he should upgrade the return game.
Defensive end George Selvie, linebackers J.T. Thomas and Jonathan
Casillas will also help.
I like how the author doesn't give a shit if a team overpays for a player in free agency, just as long as that team acquired the player. Because free agency isn't about making smart decisions to help your team in the short-term and not handicap the team in the long-term. Not at all. Free agency is about spending however much money that team needs to spend in order to improve themselves on paper. Who cares if a team overpays for a free agent? It's about making a splash and getting a good grade for that. Fiscal responsibility isn't cool and can only result in a lower grade.
New York Jets: PASS
Although they shelled out massive money to
bring cornerback Darrelle Revis back to Broadway, it was the right
decision. Revis is still an elite player and should be one for the
majority of his five-year deal. It was an excellent signing by new
general manager Mike Maccagnan.
Maccagnan also signed two other cornerbacks, Antonio Cromartie and
Buster Skrine, morphing a position of weakness into one of strength.
Also brought in were guard James Carpenter and safety Marcus Gilchrist.
Thanks to these signings, the Jets earn a big-time passing grade for the free-agency period.
The Jets spent a lot of money on players and this obviously gives them a good grade. Here is a fun game. Think about the big free agent signings over the last few years and how they turned out. This writer gave every team who signed a big name/expensive free agent a passing grade. Yet when looking back on big signings in free agency from a few years back, those teams wouldn't get a passing grade. It's almost like the author values a splash signing more than he values smart free agent signings. That's the typical reaction of fan-boy, amateur bullshit writing, so I shouldn't be surprised.
Oakland Raiders: PASS
Beleaguered general manager Reggie McKenzie made a series of great signings, including linebacker Curtis Lofton,
Who, as Saints fans will attest, isn't very good at playing football.
former Super Bowl MVP Malcolm Smith (linebacker).
He's also more recently a former backup linebacker, which of course the author fails to mention.
And running back Trent Richardson represents a low-risk, high-reward transaction (seriously).
Seriously, regardless of the risk, Trent Richardson is awful. The tape don't lie.
Philadelphia Eagles: PASS
At this point, it seems every team is passing. Everything is awesome! Every NFL team improved itself in free agency! How realistic.
Kelly's trade for Rams quarterback Sam Bradford (dealing a second-round pick in 2016 and quarterback Nick Foles
to get him) was questionable, but the rest of Kelly's moves were
brilliant. Running back LeSean McCoy didn't have a great season last
year, and Kelly was able to get a quality young linebacker, Kiko Alonso,
for him.
Repeat after me. This was a trade and had nothing to do with free agency. Consistently the author is mixing free agency with other personnel moves outside of free agency.
Philadelphia Eagles coach Chip Kelly has become the most interesting man
in sports. He doesn't always talk to the media, but when he does,
everyone stops what they're doing and listens.
And that's a credit to the incredibly interesting Kelly, who doesn't care what you or anyone else thinks.
I actually agree with the author about the Eagles' moves, but not because Kelly is interesting. It seems the author is confusing a coach being interesting with this meaning the moves he made in free agency (and of course, outside of free agency) are smart.
Pittsburgh Steelers: PASS
So give general manager Kevin Colbert and coach Mike Tomlin credit for re-signing Roethlisberger to a massive contract extension that will allow him to retire a Steeler.
(Bangs head against the table that a current Steelers player being given a contract extension is being included as part of a grade on how the Steelers did in free agency)
The signing of running back DeAngelo Williams should help, as the depth
last year (once LeGarrette Blount was cut and re-emerged in New England)
behind starter Le'Veon Bell wasn't great. Williams might not be the
player he once was, but he's still capable of moving the chains and
getting the job done.
As of the time the author wrote this, this was the only move the Steelers had made in free agency. So while the author knocks other teams for not filling all the roster holes they had, the Steelers sign a backup running back while losing three starters (Worilds, Keisel, Taylor) and they get a passing grade. I guess they have no more roster holes to fill.
Bringing in Williams was a brilliant move by Colbert, and inking
Roethlisberger to an extension was smart. That earns the Steelers a
passing grade.
I wouldn't call signing Williams as "brilliant." I saw him play for his entire career and he's definitely playing with a fork in his back at this point. The Roethlisberger extension was not a free agent signing. I will repeat this until I die, which may be soon.
Seattle Seahawks: PASS
The only move that ultimately matters in their pursuit of a second
Lombardi Trophy was the trade to bring in All-Pro tight end Jimmy Graham
from New Orleans.
There's no point in typing it at this point.
Gone are cornerback Byron Maxwell, guard James Carpenter and Super
Bowl hero Malcolm Smith, but general John Schneider has assembled a
roster with great depth that can overcome those losses.
The acquisition of Graham easily earns Seattle a passing grade.
I love how when the author wants to give a team as passing grade, and yet that team has lost some players in free agency without replacing them, so he just writes, "GM X has assembled a roster with great depth that can overcome those losses" without going into specifics. Yeah fuck it, they'll be fine. Who cares how, because that trade for Jimmy Graham gives the Seahawks a high grade in free agency. So everything should be fine after that.
St. Louis Rams: PASS
Like every other team, the Rams pass because they made a move which gave them headlines. Also, like much of this list, the trade for Foles is the biggest reason the Rams did well in free agency which apparently is now shorthand for "every move the team has made in the offseason."
Tampa Bay Buccaneers: FAIL
Last offseason, the Tampa Bay Buccaneers went on a free-agent spending
spree, notably signing quarterback Josh McCown, defensive end Michael
Johnson and offensive tackle Anthony Collins.
As of now, none of those three players are still on the roster. So
we're going to retroactively award a failing grade for both last year's
free-agency period and this one. You're welcome, Tampa Bay.
And yet, without any sense of self-awarenss or the slightest bit of irony, the author has awarded every team that made big, expensive moves during 2015 free agency a sparkling "Pass" grade. It's weird how the author knows these big free agency moves didn't work out for the Buccaneers last year, but he doesn't think to realize perhaps these "Pass" grades based on big moves might end up looking silly a year from now. Big free agent moves don't always work out, yet the teams who make these moves get an exciting "Pass" grade in free agency from the author.
It's hilarious to me the author is all like, "HAHA! Look at those stupid Buccaneers who made high-profile and expensive moves to improve the team last year in free agency. Let's all point and laugh at them for thinking if they throw money at players then the team will succeed. THE JOKE'S ON YOU ASSHOLE!" Then he proceeds to give every team that made high-profile and expensive moves a passing grade for this offseason. It's grand.
Washington Redskins: PASS
And McCloughan has already made a positive impact on the roster, making a
number of under-the-radar signings in free agency that make both
football and financial sense. What a novel concept!
But did he fill all of the personnel holes the Redskins team had? Because that's the standard upon which free agency is judged apparently. The Redskins failed if they didn't address every single need the team had in free agency. We've learned this truth throughout the slideshow.
Linebacker Brian Orakpo and running back Roy Helu headline the list of
players that signed elsewhere, but Orakpo had underachieved and Helu is
expendable.
Ah screw 'em, who needs these guys anyway? Brian Orakpo underachieved and Roy Helu is just a guy. Of course the author did give the Titans and Raiders "Pass" grades for signing these two players, so I have to wonder why it was smart for the Redskins to not re-sign Orakpo because he underachieved, but the Titans made a smart move by signing him? That seems odd. If Helu is expendable, then why would part of the Raiders' "Pass" grade be based partly upon them signing him?
Overall, the Redskins got better, and that earns them a passing grade.
Yeah, but what happened to filling all the holes on the team because free agency is the last chance to do that? Isn't that how the author judged NFL teams earlier in this exercise of free agency grading futility? The Ravens failed due to not filling all the holes the team had.
I should expect nothing else from a grading system that uses personnel moves a team made outside of free agency as the basis for a grade on how that team did in free agency.
Showing posts with label free agency. Show all posts
Showing posts with label free agency. Show all posts
Thursday, April 9, 2015
Tuesday, March 31, 2015
8 comments MMQB Review: Peter Talks about the NFL Teams that "Control" the Draft Again Edition
Peter King interviewed Roger Goodell in last week's MMQB. Goodell, who is ALWAYS available to be interviewed tried as hard as he could to say nothing of substance. Peter also detailed the rule changes that will be introduced as a response to the Ravens-Patriots playoff game where the Patriots confused Baltimore about who was and was not an eligible receiver. Peter also talked briefly about an underrated U2 song, which is an oxymoron like calling a Bruce Springsteen album underrated. This week Peter talks about how the extra point could change (and the NFL isn't even changing it based on something the Patriots did that pissed off an opposing team, which is a shock to me), provides interesting (to him) quotes from head coaches at the league meetings, and doesn't seem to understand athletes don't write what appears on The Players' Tribune. That changed my opinion of the site and perhaps Peter should stop referring to essays on this site "written" by a certain player, as he does several times in this MMQB.
We’re exactly one month out from round one of the NFL draft. There’s a lot to cover this week, including:
Suddenly, the Saints—who are not finished making over their team—own the 2015 draft
The Browns have plenty of draft ammo—that is, unless the NFL takes some of it to smite GM Ray Farmer
Just what parity needs: the Patriots with three prime selections in a six-pick span
Peter does this shit every year. Every year he writes about what team "owns" the draft or "controls" the draft because of all the picks they have. A few years ago it was the 49ers, it was the Patriots before that, and then the Browns controlled the draft one year. I understand it's fun to talk about, but just because a team has a bunch of selections doesn't mean that team "controls" the draft or is going to make smart picks/moves with those picks. The Saints OWN the draft, you know? Sure, they have no cap room, but they have a bunch of picks, which means they don't even have to worry about those being smart picks. The Patriots have "prime" selections in the draft, like they had in the past when they missed on players they drafted in prime spots, while hitting on 7th rounders like Julian Edelman or a 3rd round pick like Logan Ryan. It annoys me because these teams still have to smart in making decisions with these picks. But yet, every year Peter talks about which team "owns" the draft and then forgets about it a year later. At some point I want Peter to realize having a bunch of picks doesn't mean a team "owns" or "controls" the draft.
But first, the biggest change to NFL scoring in the 95-year history of the league is coming. If you don’t like it, get out of the way.
Peter King obviously likes the change to the PAT. He's been advocating for the PAT to be eliminated or changed for a while now.
Last year, in a general session at an NFL meeting, the league’s 32 teams agreed—almost unanimously—that the point after touchdown was passé. Had to go. Too automatic. And so eight days ago, when the competition committee gathered in Phoenix to go over potential rule changes for the 2015 season, the committee was stuck on the PAT fix.
These are NFL problems. How do they fix the PAT, which isn't really broken, but just isn't as exciting as the NFL wants it to be?
There was nothing the group thought it could sell that would get the required 24 votes from the teams. (A rule change needs a three-quarter vote to pass.)
Thirty of 32 teams said they wanted the PAT to change, as teams, one by one, had a chance to advance their own solutions. But the opinions on what the new rule should be “were all over the map,” one competition committee member told me in Phoenix. “That’s the problem now. No one can agree, and now we have to come up with a compromise that’ll get 24 votes in May.”
All 32 NFL teams can agree that they do like money, then they would decide it would be fun to have 10 preseason games and would increase the regular season to 20 games and ask the union if it was fine if the NFL players all played under one year contracts.
This is the most likely compromise to be advanced, and the most likely way the league will amend how teams can score after a touchdown:
Teams will have a choice whether to go for one or two points after a touchdown, from different distances.
If the offensive team chooses to kick for one point, the scrimmage line will move from the 2-yard-line to the 15-yard line, making it a 32- or 33-yard attempt.
If the offensive team chooses to go for two points, the scrimmage line will be either the 1-and-a half- or 2-yard line. There was much debate about making it the 1, the 1-and-a-half or the 2. The feeling about putting it on the 1 was that it could turn into too much of a scrum/push-the-pile play, or a fluky puncture-the-goal-line-with-the-ball-and-bring-it-back play by the quarterback. Putting it at the 1-and-a-half or leaving it at the 2 would increase the chances of a real football play with some drama.
What I wrote in MMQB last week when discussing this same issue:
c. Moving the extra point back to the 15-yard line. (At least.)
d. Narrowing the goal posts.
e. Making the line of scrimmage for the extra point or two-point conversion the one-yard line.
Obviously "c" and "e" can't both happen,
Well, apparently both "c" and "e" can happen. I can't believe I underestimated the NFL like this. Here is what else I said on this topic:
Also, moving the extra point back to the 15-yard line essentially takes the two-point conversion out of play, unless the NFL wants a rule which says if a team is going for two then they get the ball on the 2-yard line and if a team is trying an extra point then they have to try it from the 15-yard line. That seems dumb to me.
My feelings on the dumbness of this rule still stands. Perhaps it makes sense and I'm just not used to it. The 32 or 33 yard field goal is still fairly automatic, as NFL kickers still make this fairly regularly. Since NFL kickers do miss these then the intended effect the NFL wants will occur. The PAT isn't automatic, but it is kind of dumb to me that a 33 yard field is worth 3 points and a 33 yard extra point is worth 1 point.
Maybe I'll get used to it. I think it's funny that I said both "c" and "e" could not happen at the same time and that seems to be the option the NFL owners have chosen.
The defensive team would be able to score two points by either blocking the PAT and returning it downfield to the end zone, or by intercepting the two-point attempt and running it back, or recovering a fumble on the two-point play and returning it all the way.
Maybe these plays should be worth 1.557 points to the defense, just to drive Gregg Easterbrook crazy with the choice to use over-hyperspecificity.
Again, that’s not certain. Anytime you ask 24 teams to agree on anything, there’s a chance it won’t happen.
Which means zero new rules would ever be passed. Congress thinks this is a great idea.
There always will be those who don’t want the scoring system to change, because of tradition, or the attitude that football’s not broken, so why fix it? But the PAT is broken. The current system of scoring was invented by the lords of college football in 1912—six points for a touchdown, one for an extra point, two for a safety, three for a field goal—with the two-point conversion added by the NFL in 1994. Now the PAT cries out to be fixed. It’s simply not a competitive play anymore.
This is as opposed to the kickoff, which is now a more competitive play as kick returners now more and more watch the ball sail over their head and trot off the field as another commercial break begins.
Fifteen teams have not missed a PAT this decade. Tennessee hasn’t missed one since 2005, Kansas City and San Francisco since 2006. The Patriots and Broncos, combined, are 436 for 436 since 2011. Doing nothing would be the mistake.
The extra point should probably be changed. Maybe this will fix the problem the NFL has with the extra point being a competitive play and encourage teams to go for a two-point conversion more often.
The Saints will be a headline act. I don’t believe it involves Drew Brees, because I think the Saints are committed to at least one more season of Brees at quarterback. But I hear New Orleans wants to be even more active before the draft, and that could mean dealing stalwart guard Jahri Evans for a third- or fourth-round pick. Or it could mean signing or dealing defensive end Cam Jordan. As of today, the Saints are the biggest power players in the draft. They’re the only team with five picks in the first three rounds. They have 13, 31, 44, 75 and 78. So actually they have five picks in the first two-and-a-half rounds. That gives aggressive GM Mickey Loomis the ammo to start to remake his team.
THE SAINTS ARE GOING TO "OWN" THE DRAFT THIS YEAR!
You want to pick in the top nine. Here’s what a few football people at the league meetings are thinking about the breakdown of this draft: Nine prime picks, then eight or 10 really good prospects, then maybe 30 or so of the same player.
And when has group-think about how many good players are in the draft and where the best place to draft the difference makers for a team ever been wrong? It's why Tavon Austin is the difference maker he is and how Dion Jordan is racking up sacks in Miami.
The top nine: quarterbacks Jameis Winston and Marcus Mariota, defensive tackle Leonard Williams, wideouts Kevin White and Amari Cooper, pass-rushers Dante Fowler and Vic Beasley, offensive tackle Brandon Scherff and cornerback Trae Waynes. After that, beauty starts to be in the eye of the beholder. I had one GM tell me: “The 17th pick on our board might be the 53rd pick on another team’s board—and that could be a team we really respect.”
So what's the point, Peter? Every single year NFL teams value players differently from other NFL teams. Some players aren't even on a team's draft board, while another team values that player as a first round pick. I don't think it's news that different teams have varying values for different players. It's how Mike Mitchell goes in the 2nd round of the draft.
Todd Gurley is the draft’s fascinating player. Every year, draft prospects injured the previous college football season go back to Indianapolis, site of the combine, to have their surgeries re-checked before the draft. This year, the re-checks will be April 17 and 18 in Indy, two weeks before the draft. Gurley tore his ACL on Nov. 15 and had knee reconstruction by Dr. James Andrews on Nov. 25. So he’ll be drafted five months after surgery. The book on Gurley is he’ll be good in 2015 and tremendous in 2016. It’ll be interesting, particularly with the devaluation of running backs in recent drafts, to see who picks Gurley, and how high. I think he’ll be gone by the 25th pick.
One (Me) would think if running backs are being devalued then some enterprising team might not mind selecting a player who can highly contribute in another year. After all, teams select wide receivers and other position players while expecting to put a year or two into that player's development and aren't bothered by doing this. So accordingly, what's the issue with waiting a year for a guy who shown potential to be a franchise running back? If a team can draft a wide receiver and hope he contributes in a year or two, what's wrong with doing that with a running back...even if the position is being devalued?
New England could be a big power player late on day two. The Patriots have their own picks in rounds one and two, 32nd and 64th overall. Then they have their own at the end of the third round, a third-round compensatory pick, and a pick at the top of the fourth round from the Logan Mankins trade last August. They have the 96th, 97th and 101st overall picks. Don’t be surprised to see Bill Belichick/Nick Caserio flip one of those for, say, a prime 2016 pick.
Okay, Peter. Thanks for the breaking news. The Patriots may trade some picks for a pick in the 2016 draft. Would that mean the Patriots will "own" the 2016 draft? If so, consider me to be really impressed.
The Browns and Falcons could lose mid-round picks this week. Cleveland GM Ray Farmer has admitted texting coaches during games, a violation of league rules, and the Falcons have admitted piping in extra crowd noise at the Georgia Dome. Doubt either rises to the level or a first- or second-round pick for a penalty, but I believe both teams will be docked a pick or picks for the violations. The league still has a while to go on the Jets-Patriots tampering case.
With how long it takes the NFL to investigate some things, I was surprised the punishment came down prior to the 2017 NFL Draft.
Ten Questions. Ten [Occasionally Insightful] Answers by Coaches.
Some of the most interesting stuff I heard from coaches at the league meetings in Phoenix:
SEATTLE’S PETE CARROLL
Q: Maybe a torturous one—If you have Jimmy Graham on second-and-goal at the end of the Super Bowl, is your call different?
What kind of question is this? The Seahawks have one of the best running backs in the NFL and that little fact didn't change the call, why would hypothetically having Jimmy Graham get Pete Carroll admit this would change the call?
Carroll: That’s not a torturous question. We didn’t have him! So it’s no big deal. Now, if we were in the situation again, he presents an extraordinary dimension to your offense, and we’ll see how it will unfold for us. We’re looking forward to his factor down there. It’s obvious. Forty-something touchdowns the last three years or whatever it is. [It’s 35.] There’s only a couple of guys who have scored more touchdowns than he has, and one of them is Marshawn Lynch.
So................yes, having Jimmy Graham would have changed the call?
Q: You’ve explained why you called what you called rationally several times. Is your fan base okay with it now?
Yes, the entire Seahawks fan base is okay with it now. Every single Seahawks fan has been polled and they are all perfectly fine with the play call.
Carroll: I might have mentioned it—I don’t know if it was captured or not—we knew we were going to throw the ball down there. If it was gonna take all four plays to score, we knew we were gonna throw the ball down there. That was because of the clock situation. We had prepared for that for years. So it was not a difficult situation. The fact that all the focus goes to it—yeah, that’s what it is. I gotta live with that and with our fans and all that. What I’m feeling from our fans? They’re ready to get going.
Every single one of them. Even Macklemore.
CINCINNATI’S MARVIN LEWIS
Q: Are you worried about Andy Dalton’s play in the playoffs?
It's not entirely certain who is asking these questions, as these are things that Peter King "heard" at the league meetings, but this sounds like a question that Peter would ask. The only way this could be a more obvious Peter King question is if there were a reference to Brett Favre in the question or if he managed to bash Josh Freeman in the question by comparing Dalton's play in the playoffs to Freeman's play with the Vikings.
Lewis: What worries me is our poor performance on defense in the playoffs.
The Bengals have given up 31, 19, 27, and 26 points in the playoffs with Andy Dalton as their quarterback. Obviously the defense hasn't been great, but this could have something to do with the six interceptions Dalton has thrown in these playoff games and the overall poor performance of the offense.
We do know, in order for us to be successful, which we can’t even talk about the playoffs because we haven’t gotten there, but the first thing we do, we have to take care of the ball and play better on defense. … We feel Andy’s our quarterback, and we signed him long-term, and we feel good about him … and we will continue to get better with the pieces around Andy. Andy has done a lot of things so far as a pro that not a lot of people have done. We need to keep playing better around Andy, and that will be helpful to Andy.
Can you say "Andy" a few more times? I'm not entirely sure who you are talking about.
CHICAGO’S JOHN FOX
Q: What do you do to fix Jay Cutler?
More draw plays, take the ball out of his hands with a chance to win the game because there is a 15% chance he will commit a turnover, and of course, more punting on fourth-and-short.
Fox: I think he got to the point that he lacked confidence a year ago. To build that back up is going to take time, daily. It takes trust like any relationship. I think he and [offensive coordinator] Adam Gase having a relationship from back in Denver [is helpful] so I think it starts there. Footballwise, there are things you can do in coaching to minimize some of the exposure.
See, I wasn't kidding. Run the ball, run the ball, draw plays on third down and don't take any chances because SOMETHING NEGATIVE MAY OCCUR and that would be terrible.
TENNESSEE’S KEN WHISENHUNT
Q: What do you think of Marcus Mariota’s football IQ and his ability to transition to the NFL game?
Whisenhunt: Very high. I think he has very good spatial memory. You say, what’s spatial memory?
Hell fucking no, Peter King isn't asking what spatial memory is! Peter is the one who asks the questions around here! Peter is the one who will use big words and then condescend to his audience by telling them to look the word up. Of course Peter knows what spatial memory is and the next time you ask him a question it will be "Can I at least have the shards of my teeth back?" after Peter curb stomps you for condescending to him. Peter condescends, he is NOT the condescendee.
Like, Oh yeah, that was in this game at this time. Those are the kind of things, to me, that are important for that position. You have to have a memory that can see everything and remember it, because when it happens in a game, then you have to come over and communicate that on the sideline, then you have to have a plan of how you’re gonna adjust to it. That’s what the really successful ones do. So he exhibits that type of quality. We still have a little bit more classroom time with him, but he’s been impressive. He does a lot of things that, no matter what offense you run, transition well to the NFL game.
What's it matter that Whisenhunt thinks highly of Marcus Mariota? Chip Kelly is obviously trading up and selecting Mariota according to the sports media, so Whisenhunt shouldn't even waste his time trying to evaluate Mariota's skill set.
GREEN BAY’S MIKE McCARTHY
Q: Anything you’d do differently at the end of the NFC championship game?
McCarthy: [Pause] That’s part of your scheme evaluation.
Not sure the "pause" notation is necessary since McCarthy had not started speaking yet. Everyone pauses before they start speaking so they can hear the entire question. Or at least, most people pause before speaking.
Personally I’ve gone back and watched the TV copies a few weeks back, just one more time. So as a coaching staff we’ve kind of moved past that. We’re actually starting to put in our installation for 2015.
I take that as a no.
Your spatial memory has not done you wrong, Peter.
“It’s NFL free agency … That’s not a big story.”
—New England coach Bill Belichick, on losing cornerback Darrelle Revis to the Jets in free agency.
Riiiight.
Let Peter tell you about the time he interviewed Bill Belichick and saw "The Art of War" on Belichick's bookshelf...
“I don’t trust the lady on GPS. They don’t send you the right way. I hit the button, I go like this, ‘Park Ridge, New Jersey.’ She comes back on, she’s giving me directions. Now I figure out where I am. I say, ‘Thank you very much, I know exactly where I am now.’ She comes back and says, ‘You don’t have to thank me.’ I swear to God, that’s what she said. Then I couldn’t get her to shut up.”
—Giants coach Tom Coughlin, doing battle with Siri recently as he tried to find the site of one of his grandson’s roller-hockey games in New Jersey.
If I were a Giants fan then these comments would concern me more than any personnel moves the Giants make in the offseason or whatever career trajectory Eli Manning's career seems to be taking. Tom Coughlin sounds like an old man when it comes to using technology and talking about "the lady on GPS." It's the little things like this that worry me the most, hearing a quote like this and thinking there's a 5% chance Tom Coughlin may be going senile in some way.
“In theory, freedom sounds great. We all want more freedom. But when I retired and I had all the freedom in the world, the only thing I craved was that structure. It was all I knew. Adjusting to the lack of structure and schedule is one of the biggest challenges of retirement because the real world moves much slower than the football world. Football is week-to-week, and everyone in the real world is working on the fiscal year. You have to slow yourself down because it’s not a sprint. You can’t attack every day like you do in football. You have to pace yourself and find balance. That’s a new concept for me.”
—Former Chargers center Nick Hardwick, who retired at 33 in February after an 11-year career, all in San Diego, in an essay for The Players’ Tribune.
This is the first of a few times that Peter will mention The Players' Tribune in this MMQB. It's disappointing, though I shouldn't be surprised, that many of the players don't actually write those essays found on the site for The Players' Tribune. The "essay" in many cases is really just a summation of an interview the player did with an editor of The Players' Tribune. Now that I know this, I won't say a player "wrote" something on The Players' Tribune, because I'll assume an editor actually wrote it and the essay is more of an interview.
According to cap site Spotrac, here are the most and least active teams in the first three weeks of free agency (the market essentially is dried up now):
The five biggest spenders in total contract value of signed players:
The thrifty five in total contract value of signed players:
Obviously only broad conclusions can be drawn from a list showing five teams spending money in free agency and five teams who didn't spend money in free agency, but I still can't help but notice that free agent spending doesn't seem efficient when viewed from the perspective of teams who have spent in free agency. Drafting players and developing them is still the best way to win games.
“We obviously have a philosophy,” coach Mike McCarthy said. “It’s kind of like Groundhog Day. I feel like I answer this every year, so I’ll try to be creative and answer it differently this year. But it’s just the way we operate. We do the evaluations. We just stick to our plan. Our number one priority always has been to sign our own free agents. We go into every offseason—if we have 10 conversations, nine-and-a-half of them are about our own guys.”
Free agency is a market where the highest bidder almost always wins. It's not the best place for a team to go looking to plug holes in the roster caused by ineffective drafting or personnel choices. Free agency can absolutely work for a team, but I don't think it's a coincidence the best teams don't spend big in free agency.
Bill Madden of the New York Daily News wrote Sunday that the Tigers owe Miguel Cabrera, Justin Verlander, Victor Martinez, Ian Kinsler and Anibel Sanchez $639 million in guaranteed money between now and the end of their contracts.
Costanza voice: “Is that wrong?”
Coming from a Red Sox fan, really? The Red Sox haven't spent huge lately, but they have certainly spent their share of money on contracts. Come on, it's not like Peter's favorite team doesn't spend a lot of money on contracts for their players. They aren't the Yankees, but the Red Sox also aren't a mid-market team either.
Ten Things I Think I Think
1. I think I can now say with certainty that The Other Team in the chase for Sam Bradford—as many have inferred—was Cleveland. The Browns would have been willing to part with a first-round pick in either 2015 or 2016 (I do not know which year) for Bradford, but there were two problems: One, the Browns didn’t have a quarterback to give in return, and Philadelphia was willing to fork over Nick Foles.
The Rams didn't want Thad Lewis? No way.
Two, Bradford would not have been willing to sign a new contract this off-season if he were traded to Cleveland, and he is willing to consider an extension in Philadelphia. So the Philly deal was really the only one that made sense for the Rams and for Bradford, in the end.
I'm not sure how I feel about the Browns having interest in Sam Bradford. It seems like giving up on Johnny Manziel after one season, while also feeling like not a bad move for the team. I don't see why the Browns would give up a first round pick for a quarterback like Bradford, but there are so many things I don't understand in life. Like, didn't the Browns just sign Josh McCown before they tried to acquire Bradford?
2. I think the Vikings can say a hundred times they’re not trading Adrian Peterson, and I believe they believe they will not. But the Vikings also have to understand Peterson and agent Ben Dogra could be serious about making it very hot for them this summer if they don’t trade him on draft weekend. How could Peterson make it hot? By not reporting to camp. By being a huge distraction that would drive Mike Zimmer crazy. If I were Minnesota GM Rick Spielman, I’d trade Peterson for a second-round pick if I could get it. He’s 30. He is owed $45 million over the next three years.
A second round pick for Adrian Peterson when he is owed $45 million over the next three years? I'm sure there is a team that would take this dive, but best of luck with that turning out well. And I love how Peterson threatens to hold out. How is he going to be a distraction that drives Mike Zimmer crazy? Is Peterson going to show up and photobomb Zimmer's press conferences or interrupt practice by running on the field naked? Sure, Peterson could be a distraction, but the Vikings can simply hold on to him and wait until he realizes he's 30 and the only leverage he has is that he can make life difficult for the Vikings. Plus, acting like an asshole and intentionally becoming a distraction doesn't seem like the best way for Peterson to drum up a trade market for himself.
3. I think the 2014 trades with 2015 draft implications that look the worst are, in order:
a. Buffalo sending a 2015 fourth-round pick to Philadelphia for running back Bryce Brown (2014: 36 carries, 126 yards), now buried behind LeSean McCoy on the Bills’ depth chart.
Except Bryce Brown somehow managed to fetch a fourth round pick for his services when he was buried behind LeSean McCoy on the Eagles' depth chart, so it's not necessarily a status that means Brown can't/won't contribute to the Bills team.
b. Seattle getting only a sixth-round pick, from the Jets, for Percy Harvin.
Seems like it was addition by subtraction to me.
6. I think, after his ignominious performance in 2014, it hasn’t surprised me that the market for Michael Vick is somewhere between grim and nonexistent.
Ouch. Peter King going hard at Mike Vick for being grim and nonexistent. I wonder if Peter has some harsh words for Matt Schaub or Matt Flynn for being grim and nonexistent? My guess is he does not. After all, he justified the Josh McCown signing by explaining what a great teacher McCown is.
7. I think the more I think of New Orleans signing C.J. Spiller—27 years old, making $9.5 million over the next two seasons, 5.3 yards per rush combined in 2012 and ’13 before his lost season in Buffalo last fall—the more I think the Saints made a great deal. I love Spiller.
Especially since the Saints have zero salary cap issues and certainly didn't just re-sign another running back named Mark Ingram this past offseason, so spending $9.5 million over two years on a running back in a draft where there seem to be a variety of quality running backs does seem like a great deal.
9. I think Indianapolis coach Chuck Pagano coaching out the last season of his contract—regardless of whatever Pagano or any team official would say—means that something, either major or minor, is amiss. You do not let a coach with 36 wins in three years coach out his contract, particularly if you are intent on him staying and coaching your team beyond this season.
This is some major inside information. So teams that want their head coach to continue coaching for them DO NOT fail to re-sign that head coach to a new contract prior to his contract running out? Are you sure about that, Peter? It seems counter intuitive to learn that an NFL team might offer a coach they wanted to keep a new contract prior to his old one running out, but this is just another example of the great information MMQB provides.
Ian Rapoport reported a new deal won’t get done, and longtime Colts beat man Mike Chappelle reported Pagano turned down a one-year extension. Something just doesn’t feel right about it.
It could be the Colts don't want to pay Pagano the money that he wants to coach the team. Maybe the Colts think Pep Hamilton is a better coach or perhaps Pagano is a bit frustrated he was saddled with Trent Richardson for most of the season.
10. I think these are my non-football thoughts of the week:
b. College Basketball Fever Dept.: New Jersey Institute of Technology travels to Flagstaff, Ariz., to play Northern Arizona for the semifinals of the CollegeInsider.com Tournament.
c. When NJIT and Northern Arizona meet, I mean, you can throw the records out the window.
Yes, let's mock college basketball tournaments because they aren't as relevant as the NCAA Tournament. That's the mature thing to do.
d. I also agree with Dan Shaughnessy: The more David Ortiz talks and writes about not being a PED user (which Ortiz did last week for The Players’ Tribune),
Except Ortiz didn't really write what appeared in The Players' Tribune, but I guess Peter is okay with a fellow journalist not getting credit for what he has written. I'm sure the editors of The Players' Tribune are just the CollegeInsider.com Tournament to THE MMQB's NCAA Tournament, so who cares if they get credit for what they have written?
e. Best piece on The Players’ Tribune, of all of them that I’ve read, was that Nick Hardwick adjusting-to-retirement essay. What a fantastic job of explaining so much about retirement that those of us who never played anything professionally would be able to feel.
Except, again, Nick Hardwick probably didn't even really write this essay. He spoke it and someone else edited and wrote the essay.
f. I like those pieces by the new Jeter site. But (he said, sticking his chest out with some pride) The Players’ Tribune didn’t invent the first-person athlete column. Nor did The MMQB. But our site did a score of them when Jeter was still a shortstop and not a publisher—by Richard Sherman, on multiple topics; by Russell Wilson, on race in the NFL; by journeyman defensive end Austen Lane, a gut-puncher of a piece on what it’s like be cut; by Lydon Murtha, a teammate of Richie Incognito and Jonathan Martin, on life on the inside of the bullying in Miami. And others. Just to set the record straight.
Were these essays all ghost written by someone else too? If so, I can see why Peter has no issue with an athlete getting credit for something another person has actually edited and written.
g. I really like the Yanks’ top two, Tanaka and Pineda. But is C.C. Sabathia even going to be in the rotation by June?
(Bengoodfella uses his psychic skills) Yes, he will be in the rotation in June.
h. Big, big blow if the Red Sox have lost catcher Christian Vasquez, who I keep reading is a Molina-type defender and arm.
Peter King thinks this was a huge blow to the Red Sox based on something that Peter King has read about this player, and while he has no firsthand knowledge of this player's abilities, based on what others say it was a huge blow, so Peter is just going to adopt that as the truth based on information he doesn't really know.
I can't believe the Braves traded Andy Marte a few years ago, a guy who I kept reading was just like Aramis Ramirez.
Not that Boston’s going to have enough pitching to win this year, but catchers can make pitchers better.
#analysis
l. Is baseball serious? Opening night next Sunday at Wrigley … and game two, another night game two nights later in Chicago? Why torture fans—and, presumably, frozen-fingered pitchers? Luckily for MLB, the long-range forecast is for temperatures in the 40s both nights.
Nope Peter, it is all a joke that is being played on you. Opening night is actually in Bermuda at an undisclosed location between two teams who were last seen playing in the CollegeInsider.com tournament.
p. Tom Brady cliff-diving one day, playing pickup basketball with Michael Jordan the next. How’s your off-season going?
I have a full-time job that doesn't have an offseason and I have to work year around. So my offseason is going terribly because it doesn't exist. #alwaysriseandgrind
r. Coffeenerdness: Why’d you take away the hazelnut macchiato, Starbucks? That was my occasional guilty pleasure. No more.
Starbucks should continue to make the hazelnut macchiato in every Starbucks in the United States, just for Peter King, because who knows when Peter is liable to wander into any Starbucks in the United States. In fact, baristas at Starbucks should only be trained on how to make coffee-flavored drinks that Peter King likes. Everyone else can just get used to it.
v. Just when you think you’ve seen every possible horrendous thing done by human beings, a pilot crashes a jetliner into a mountain on purpose, and 150 die.
He was actually the co-pilot, but point taken.
The Adieu Haiku
Yo! Trade Adrian.
Forty-five mill’s too much for
a back who’s thirty.
These haikus are the sportswriting equivalent of a turd sundae as dessert after a four-course meal of expired lettuce, rancid meat, and squirrel testicles for an appetizer.
We’re exactly one month out from round one of the NFL draft. There’s a lot to cover this week, including:
Suddenly, the Saints—who are not finished making over their team—own the 2015 draft
The Browns have plenty of draft ammo—that is, unless the NFL takes some of it to smite GM Ray Farmer
Just what parity needs: the Patriots with three prime selections in a six-pick span
Peter does this shit every year. Every year he writes about what team "owns" the draft or "controls" the draft because of all the picks they have. A few years ago it was the 49ers, it was the Patriots before that, and then the Browns controlled the draft one year. I understand it's fun to talk about, but just because a team has a bunch of selections doesn't mean that team "controls" the draft or is going to make smart picks/moves with those picks. The Saints OWN the draft, you know? Sure, they have no cap room, but they have a bunch of picks, which means they don't even have to worry about those being smart picks. The Patriots have "prime" selections in the draft, like they had in the past when they missed on players they drafted in prime spots, while hitting on 7th rounders like Julian Edelman or a 3rd round pick like Logan Ryan. It annoys me because these teams still have to smart in making decisions with these picks. But yet, every year Peter talks about which team "owns" the draft and then forgets about it a year later. At some point I want Peter to realize having a bunch of picks doesn't mean a team "owns" or "controls" the draft.
But first, the biggest change to NFL scoring in the 95-year history of the league is coming. If you don’t like it, get out of the way.
Peter King obviously likes the change to the PAT. He's been advocating for the PAT to be eliminated or changed for a while now.
Last year, in a general session at an NFL meeting, the league’s 32 teams agreed—almost unanimously—that the point after touchdown was passé. Had to go. Too automatic. And so eight days ago, when the competition committee gathered in Phoenix to go over potential rule changes for the 2015 season, the committee was stuck on the PAT fix.
These are NFL problems. How do they fix the PAT, which isn't really broken, but just isn't as exciting as the NFL wants it to be?
There was nothing the group thought it could sell that would get the required 24 votes from the teams. (A rule change needs a three-quarter vote to pass.)
Thirty of 32 teams said they wanted the PAT to change, as teams, one by one, had a chance to advance their own solutions. But the opinions on what the new rule should be “were all over the map,” one competition committee member told me in Phoenix. “That’s the problem now. No one can agree, and now we have to come up with a compromise that’ll get 24 votes in May.”
All 32 NFL teams can agree that they do like money, then they would decide it would be fun to have 10 preseason games and would increase the regular season to 20 games and ask the union if it was fine if the NFL players all played under one year contracts.
This is the most likely compromise to be advanced, and the most likely way the league will amend how teams can score after a touchdown:
Teams will have a choice whether to go for one or two points after a touchdown, from different distances.
If the offensive team chooses to kick for one point, the scrimmage line will move from the 2-yard-line to the 15-yard line, making it a 32- or 33-yard attempt.
If the offensive team chooses to go for two points, the scrimmage line will be either the 1-and-a half- or 2-yard line. There was much debate about making it the 1, the 1-and-a-half or the 2. The feeling about putting it on the 1 was that it could turn into too much of a scrum/push-the-pile play, or a fluky puncture-the-goal-line-with-the-ball-and-bring-it-back play by the quarterback. Putting it at the 1-and-a-half or leaving it at the 2 would increase the chances of a real football play with some drama.
What I wrote in MMQB last week when discussing this same issue:
c. Moving the extra point back to the 15-yard line. (At least.)
d. Narrowing the goal posts.
e. Making the line of scrimmage for the extra point or two-point conversion the one-yard line.
Obviously "c" and "e" can't both happen,
Well, apparently both "c" and "e" can happen. I can't believe I underestimated the NFL like this. Here is what else I said on this topic:
Also, moving the extra point back to the 15-yard line essentially takes the two-point conversion out of play, unless the NFL wants a rule which says if a team is going for two then they get the ball on the 2-yard line and if a team is trying an extra point then they have to try it from the 15-yard line. That seems dumb to me.
My feelings on the dumbness of this rule still stands. Perhaps it makes sense and I'm just not used to it. The 32 or 33 yard field goal is still fairly automatic, as NFL kickers still make this fairly regularly. Since NFL kickers do miss these then the intended effect the NFL wants will occur. The PAT isn't automatic, but it is kind of dumb to me that a 33 yard field is worth 3 points and a 33 yard extra point is worth 1 point.
Maybe I'll get used to it. I think it's funny that I said both "c" and "e" could not happen at the same time and that seems to be the option the NFL owners have chosen.
The defensive team would be able to score two points by either blocking the PAT and returning it downfield to the end zone, or by intercepting the two-point attempt and running it back, or recovering a fumble on the two-point play and returning it all the way.
Maybe these plays should be worth 1.557 points to the defense, just to drive Gregg Easterbrook crazy with the choice to use over-hyperspecificity.
Again, that’s not certain. Anytime you ask 24 teams to agree on anything, there’s a chance it won’t happen.
Which means zero new rules would ever be passed. Congress thinks this is a great idea.
There always will be those who don’t want the scoring system to change, because of tradition, or the attitude that football’s not broken, so why fix it? But the PAT is broken. The current system of scoring was invented by the lords of college football in 1912—six points for a touchdown, one for an extra point, two for a safety, three for a field goal—with the two-point conversion added by the NFL in 1994. Now the PAT cries out to be fixed. It’s simply not a competitive play anymore.
This is as opposed to the kickoff, which is now a more competitive play as kick returners now more and more watch the ball sail over their head and trot off the field as another commercial break begins.
Fifteen teams have not missed a PAT this decade. Tennessee hasn’t missed one since 2005, Kansas City and San Francisco since 2006. The Patriots and Broncos, combined, are 436 for 436 since 2011. Doing nothing would be the mistake.
The extra point should probably be changed. Maybe this will fix the problem the NFL has with the extra point being a competitive play and encourage teams to go for a two-point conversion more often.
The Saints will be a headline act. I don’t believe it involves Drew Brees, because I think the Saints are committed to at least one more season of Brees at quarterback. But I hear New Orleans wants to be even more active before the draft, and that could mean dealing stalwart guard Jahri Evans for a third- or fourth-round pick. Or it could mean signing or dealing defensive end Cam Jordan. As of today, the Saints are the biggest power players in the draft. They’re the only team with five picks in the first three rounds. They have 13, 31, 44, 75 and 78. So actually they have five picks in the first two-and-a-half rounds. That gives aggressive GM Mickey Loomis the ammo to start to remake his team.
THE SAINTS ARE GOING TO "OWN" THE DRAFT THIS YEAR!
You want to pick in the top nine. Here’s what a few football people at the league meetings are thinking about the breakdown of this draft: Nine prime picks, then eight or 10 really good prospects, then maybe 30 or so of the same player.
And when has group-think about how many good players are in the draft and where the best place to draft the difference makers for a team ever been wrong? It's why Tavon Austin is the difference maker he is and how Dion Jordan is racking up sacks in Miami.
The top nine: quarterbacks Jameis Winston and Marcus Mariota, defensive tackle Leonard Williams, wideouts Kevin White and Amari Cooper, pass-rushers Dante Fowler and Vic Beasley, offensive tackle Brandon Scherff and cornerback Trae Waynes. After that, beauty starts to be in the eye of the beholder. I had one GM tell me: “The 17th pick on our board might be the 53rd pick on another team’s board—and that could be a team we really respect.”
So what's the point, Peter? Every single year NFL teams value players differently from other NFL teams. Some players aren't even on a team's draft board, while another team values that player as a first round pick. I don't think it's news that different teams have varying values for different players. It's how Mike Mitchell goes in the 2nd round of the draft.
Todd Gurley is the draft’s fascinating player. Every year, draft prospects injured the previous college football season go back to Indianapolis, site of the combine, to have their surgeries re-checked before the draft. This year, the re-checks will be April 17 and 18 in Indy, two weeks before the draft. Gurley tore his ACL on Nov. 15 and had knee reconstruction by Dr. James Andrews on Nov. 25. So he’ll be drafted five months after surgery. The book on Gurley is he’ll be good in 2015 and tremendous in 2016. It’ll be interesting, particularly with the devaluation of running backs in recent drafts, to see who picks Gurley, and how high. I think he’ll be gone by the 25th pick.
One (Me) would think if running backs are being devalued then some enterprising team might not mind selecting a player who can highly contribute in another year. After all, teams select wide receivers and other position players while expecting to put a year or two into that player's development and aren't bothered by doing this. So accordingly, what's the issue with waiting a year for a guy who shown potential to be a franchise running back? If a team can draft a wide receiver and hope he contributes in a year or two, what's wrong with doing that with a running back...even if the position is being devalued?
New England could be a big power player late on day two. The Patriots have their own picks in rounds one and two, 32nd and 64th overall. Then they have their own at the end of the third round, a third-round compensatory pick, and a pick at the top of the fourth round from the Logan Mankins trade last August. They have the 96th, 97th and 101st overall picks. Don’t be surprised to see Bill Belichick/Nick Caserio flip one of those for, say, a prime 2016 pick.
Okay, Peter. Thanks for the breaking news. The Patriots may trade some picks for a pick in the 2016 draft. Would that mean the Patriots will "own" the 2016 draft? If so, consider me to be really impressed.
The Browns and Falcons could lose mid-round picks this week. Cleveland GM Ray Farmer has admitted texting coaches during games, a violation of league rules, and the Falcons have admitted piping in extra crowd noise at the Georgia Dome. Doubt either rises to the level or a first- or second-round pick for a penalty, but I believe both teams will be docked a pick or picks for the violations. The league still has a while to go on the Jets-Patriots tampering case.
With how long it takes the NFL to investigate some things, I was surprised the punishment came down prior to the 2017 NFL Draft.
Ten Questions. Ten [Occasionally Insightful] Answers by Coaches.
Some of the most interesting stuff I heard from coaches at the league meetings in Phoenix:
SEATTLE’S PETE CARROLL
Q: Maybe a torturous one—If you have Jimmy Graham on second-and-goal at the end of the Super Bowl, is your call different?
What kind of question is this? The Seahawks have one of the best running backs in the NFL and that little fact didn't change the call, why would hypothetically having Jimmy Graham get Pete Carroll admit this would change the call?
Carroll: That’s not a torturous question. We didn’t have him! So it’s no big deal. Now, if we were in the situation again, he presents an extraordinary dimension to your offense, and we’ll see how it will unfold for us. We’re looking forward to his factor down there. It’s obvious. Forty-something touchdowns the last three years or whatever it is. [It’s 35.] There’s only a couple of guys who have scored more touchdowns than he has, and one of them is Marshawn Lynch.
So................yes, having Jimmy Graham would have changed the call?
Q: You’ve explained why you called what you called rationally several times. Is your fan base okay with it now?
Yes, the entire Seahawks fan base is okay with it now. Every single Seahawks fan has been polled and they are all perfectly fine with the play call.
Carroll: I might have mentioned it—I don’t know if it was captured or not—we knew we were going to throw the ball down there. If it was gonna take all four plays to score, we knew we were gonna throw the ball down there. That was because of the clock situation. We had prepared for that for years. So it was not a difficult situation. The fact that all the focus goes to it—yeah, that’s what it is. I gotta live with that and with our fans and all that. What I’m feeling from our fans? They’re ready to get going.
Every single one of them. Even Macklemore.
CINCINNATI’S MARVIN LEWIS
Q: Are you worried about Andy Dalton’s play in the playoffs?
It's not entirely certain who is asking these questions, as these are things that Peter King "heard" at the league meetings, but this sounds like a question that Peter would ask. The only way this could be a more obvious Peter King question is if there were a reference to Brett Favre in the question or if he managed to bash Josh Freeman in the question by comparing Dalton's play in the playoffs to Freeman's play with the Vikings.
Lewis: What worries me is our poor performance on defense in the playoffs.
The Bengals have given up 31, 19, 27, and 26 points in the playoffs with Andy Dalton as their quarterback. Obviously the defense hasn't been great, but this could have something to do with the six interceptions Dalton has thrown in these playoff games and the overall poor performance of the offense.
We do know, in order for us to be successful, which we can’t even talk about the playoffs because we haven’t gotten there, but the first thing we do, we have to take care of the ball and play better on defense. … We feel Andy’s our quarterback, and we signed him long-term, and we feel good about him … and we will continue to get better with the pieces around Andy. Andy has done a lot of things so far as a pro that not a lot of people have done. We need to keep playing better around Andy, and that will be helpful to Andy.
Can you say "Andy" a few more times? I'm not entirely sure who you are talking about.
CHICAGO’S JOHN FOX
Q: What do you do to fix Jay Cutler?
More draw plays, take the ball out of his hands with a chance to win the game because there is a 15% chance he will commit a turnover, and of course, more punting on fourth-and-short.
Fox: I think he got to the point that he lacked confidence a year ago. To build that back up is going to take time, daily. It takes trust like any relationship. I think he and [offensive coordinator] Adam Gase having a relationship from back in Denver [is helpful] so I think it starts there. Footballwise, there are things you can do in coaching to minimize some of the exposure.
See, I wasn't kidding. Run the ball, run the ball, draw plays on third down and don't take any chances because SOMETHING NEGATIVE MAY OCCUR and that would be terrible.
TENNESSEE’S KEN WHISENHUNT
Q: What do you think of Marcus Mariota’s football IQ and his ability to transition to the NFL game?
Whisenhunt: Very high. I think he has very good spatial memory. You say, what’s spatial memory?
Hell fucking no, Peter King isn't asking what spatial memory is! Peter is the one who asks the questions around here! Peter is the one who will use big words and then condescend to his audience by telling them to look the word up. Of course Peter knows what spatial memory is and the next time you ask him a question it will be "Can I at least have the shards of my teeth back?" after Peter curb stomps you for condescending to him. Peter condescends, he is NOT the condescendee.
Like, Oh yeah, that was in this game at this time. Those are the kind of things, to me, that are important for that position. You have to have a memory that can see everything and remember it, because when it happens in a game, then you have to come over and communicate that on the sideline, then you have to have a plan of how you’re gonna adjust to it. That’s what the really successful ones do. So he exhibits that type of quality. We still have a little bit more classroom time with him, but he’s been impressive. He does a lot of things that, no matter what offense you run, transition well to the NFL game.
What's it matter that Whisenhunt thinks highly of Marcus Mariota? Chip Kelly is obviously trading up and selecting Mariota according to the sports media, so Whisenhunt shouldn't even waste his time trying to evaluate Mariota's skill set.
GREEN BAY’S MIKE McCARTHY
Q: Anything you’d do differently at the end of the NFC championship game?
McCarthy: [Pause] That’s part of your scheme evaluation.
Not sure the "pause" notation is necessary since McCarthy had not started speaking yet. Everyone pauses before they start speaking so they can hear the entire question. Or at least, most people pause before speaking.
Personally I’ve gone back and watched the TV copies a few weeks back, just one more time. So as a coaching staff we’ve kind of moved past that. We’re actually starting to put in our installation for 2015.
I take that as a no.
Your spatial memory has not done you wrong, Peter.
“It’s NFL free agency … That’s not a big story.”
—New England coach Bill Belichick, on losing cornerback Darrelle Revis to the Jets in free agency.
Riiiight.
Let Peter tell you about the time he interviewed Bill Belichick and saw "The Art of War" on Belichick's bookshelf...
“I don’t trust the lady on GPS. They don’t send you the right way. I hit the button, I go like this, ‘Park Ridge, New Jersey.’ She comes back on, she’s giving me directions. Now I figure out where I am. I say, ‘Thank you very much, I know exactly where I am now.’ She comes back and says, ‘You don’t have to thank me.’ I swear to God, that’s what she said. Then I couldn’t get her to shut up.”
—Giants coach Tom Coughlin, doing battle with Siri recently as he tried to find the site of one of his grandson’s roller-hockey games in New Jersey.
If I were a Giants fan then these comments would concern me more than any personnel moves the Giants make in the offseason or whatever career trajectory Eli Manning's career seems to be taking. Tom Coughlin sounds like an old man when it comes to using technology and talking about "the lady on GPS." It's the little things like this that worry me the most, hearing a quote like this and thinking there's a 5% chance Tom Coughlin may be going senile in some way.
“In theory, freedom sounds great. We all want more freedom. But when I retired and I had all the freedom in the world, the only thing I craved was that structure. It was all I knew. Adjusting to the lack of structure and schedule is one of the biggest challenges of retirement because the real world moves much slower than the football world. Football is week-to-week, and everyone in the real world is working on the fiscal year. You have to slow yourself down because it’s not a sprint. You can’t attack every day like you do in football. You have to pace yourself and find balance. That’s a new concept for me.”
—Former Chargers center Nick Hardwick, who retired at 33 in February after an 11-year career, all in San Diego, in an essay for The Players’ Tribune.
This is the first of a few times that Peter will mention The Players' Tribune in this MMQB. It's disappointing, though I shouldn't be surprised, that many of the players don't actually write those essays found on the site for The Players' Tribune. The "essay" in many cases is really just a summation of an interview the player did with an editor of The Players' Tribune. Now that I know this, I won't say a player "wrote" something on The Players' Tribune, because I'll assume an editor actually wrote it and the essay is more of an interview.
According to cap site Spotrac, here are the most and least active teams in the first three weeks of free agency (the market essentially is dried up now):
The five biggest spenders in total contract value of signed players:
- Jacksonville: $172.5 million
- New York Jets: $172.0M
- Miami: $139.8M
- Philadelphia: $117.3M
- Tennessee: $110.2M
The thrifty five in total contract value of signed players:
- Minnesota: $9.3M
- Carolina: $8.8M
- Detroit: $8.6M
- Pittsburgh: $6.6M
- Green Bay: Zero
Obviously only broad conclusions can be drawn from a list showing five teams spending money in free agency and five teams who didn't spend money in free agency, but I still can't help but notice that free agent spending doesn't seem efficient when viewed from the perspective of teams who have spent in free agency. Drafting players and developing them is still the best way to win games.
“We obviously have a philosophy,” coach Mike McCarthy said. “It’s kind of like Groundhog Day. I feel like I answer this every year, so I’ll try to be creative and answer it differently this year. But it’s just the way we operate. We do the evaluations. We just stick to our plan. Our number one priority always has been to sign our own free agents. We go into every offseason—if we have 10 conversations, nine-and-a-half of them are about our own guys.”
Free agency is a market where the highest bidder almost always wins. It's not the best place for a team to go looking to plug holes in the roster caused by ineffective drafting or personnel choices. Free agency can absolutely work for a team, but I don't think it's a coincidence the best teams don't spend big in free agency.
Bill Madden of the New York Daily News wrote Sunday that the Tigers owe Miguel Cabrera, Justin Verlander, Victor Martinez, Ian Kinsler and Anibel Sanchez $639 million in guaranteed money between now and the end of their contracts.
Costanza voice: “Is that wrong?”
Coming from a Red Sox fan, really? The Red Sox haven't spent huge lately, but they have certainly spent their share of money on contracts. Come on, it's not like Peter's favorite team doesn't spend a lot of money on contracts for their players. They aren't the Yankees, but the Red Sox also aren't a mid-market team either.
Ten Things I Think I Think
1. I think I can now say with certainty that The Other Team in the chase for Sam Bradford—as many have inferred—was Cleveland. The Browns would have been willing to part with a first-round pick in either 2015 or 2016 (I do not know which year) for Bradford, but there were two problems: One, the Browns didn’t have a quarterback to give in return, and Philadelphia was willing to fork over Nick Foles.
The Rams didn't want Thad Lewis? No way.
Two, Bradford would not have been willing to sign a new contract this off-season if he were traded to Cleveland, and he is willing to consider an extension in Philadelphia. So the Philly deal was really the only one that made sense for the Rams and for Bradford, in the end.
I'm not sure how I feel about the Browns having interest in Sam Bradford. It seems like giving up on Johnny Manziel after one season, while also feeling like not a bad move for the team. I don't see why the Browns would give up a first round pick for a quarterback like Bradford, but there are so many things I don't understand in life. Like, didn't the Browns just sign Josh McCown before they tried to acquire Bradford?
2. I think the Vikings can say a hundred times they’re not trading Adrian Peterson, and I believe they believe they will not. But the Vikings also have to understand Peterson and agent Ben Dogra could be serious about making it very hot for them this summer if they don’t trade him on draft weekend. How could Peterson make it hot? By not reporting to camp. By being a huge distraction that would drive Mike Zimmer crazy. If I were Minnesota GM Rick Spielman, I’d trade Peterson for a second-round pick if I could get it. He’s 30. He is owed $45 million over the next three years.
A second round pick for Adrian Peterson when he is owed $45 million over the next three years? I'm sure there is a team that would take this dive, but best of luck with that turning out well. And I love how Peterson threatens to hold out. How is he going to be a distraction that drives Mike Zimmer crazy? Is Peterson going to show up and photobomb Zimmer's press conferences or interrupt practice by running on the field naked? Sure, Peterson could be a distraction, but the Vikings can simply hold on to him and wait until he realizes he's 30 and the only leverage he has is that he can make life difficult for the Vikings. Plus, acting like an asshole and intentionally becoming a distraction doesn't seem like the best way for Peterson to drum up a trade market for himself.
3. I think the 2014 trades with 2015 draft implications that look the worst are, in order:
a. Buffalo sending a 2015 fourth-round pick to Philadelphia for running back Bryce Brown (2014: 36 carries, 126 yards), now buried behind LeSean McCoy on the Bills’ depth chart.
Except Bryce Brown somehow managed to fetch a fourth round pick for his services when he was buried behind LeSean McCoy on the Eagles' depth chart, so it's not necessarily a status that means Brown can't/won't contribute to the Bills team.
b. Seattle getting only a sixth-round pick, from the Jets, for Percy Harvin.
Seems like it was addition by subtraction to me.
6. I think, after his ignominious performance in 2014, it hasn’t surprised me that the market for Michael Vick is somewhere between grim and nonexistent.
Ouch. Peter King going hard at Mike Vick for being grim and nonexistent. I wonder if Peter has some harsh words for Matt Schaub or Matt Flynn for being grim and nonexistent? My guess is he does not. After all, he justified the Josh McCown signing by explaining what a great teacher McCown is.
7. I think the more I think of New Orleans signing C.J. Spiller—27 years old, making $9.5 million over the next two seasons, 5.3 yards per rush combined in 2012 and ’13 before his lost season in Buffalo last fall—the more I think the Saints made a great deal. I love Spiller.
Especially since the Saints have zero salary cap issues and certainly didn't just re-sign another running back named Mark Ingram this past offseason, so spending $9.5 million over two years on a running back in a draft where there seem to be a variety of quality running backs does seem like a great deal.
9. I think Indianapolis coach Chuck Pagano coaching out the last season of his contract—regardless of whatever Pagano or any team official would say—means that something, either major or minor, is amiss. You do not let a coach with 36 wins in three years coach out his contract, particularly if you are intent on him staying and coaching your team beyond this season.
This is some major inside information. So teams that want their head coach to continue coaching for them DO NOT fail to re-sign that head coach to a new contract prior to his contract running out? Are you sure about that, Peter? It seems counter intuitive to learn that an NFL team might offer a coach they wanted to keep a new contract prior to his old one running out, but this is just another example of the great information MMQB provides.
Ian Rapoport reported a new deal won’t get done, and longtime Colts beat man Mike Chappelle reported Pagano turned down a one-year extension. Something just doesn’t feel right about it.
It could be the Colts don't want to pay Pagano the money that he wants to coach the team. Maybe the Colts think Pep Hamilton is a better coach or perhaps Pagano is a bit frustrated he was saddled with Trent Richardson for most of the season.
10. I think these are my non-football thoughts of the week:
b. College Basketball Fever Dept.: New Jersey Institute of Technology travels to Flagstaff, Ariz., to play Northern Arizona for the semifinals of the CollegeInsider.com Tournament.
c. When NJIT and Northern Arizona meet, I mean, you can throw the records out the window.
Yes, let's mock college basketball tournaments because they aren't as relevant as the NCAA Tournament. That's the mature thing to do.
d. I also agree with Dan Shaughnessy: The more David Ortiz talks and writes about not being a PED user (which Ortiz did last week for The Players’ Tribune),
Except Ortiz didn't really write what appeared in The Players' Tribune, but I guess Peter is okay with a fellow journalist not getting credit for what he has written. I'm sure the editors of The Players' Tribune are just the CollegeInsider.com Tournament to THE MMQB's NCAA Tournament, so who cares if they get credit for what they have written?
e. Best piece on The Players’ Tribune, of all of them that I’ve read, was that Nick Hardwick adjusting-to-retirement essay. What a fantastic job of explaining so much about retirement that those of us who never played anything professionally would be able to feel.
Except, again, Nick Hardwick probably didn't even really write this essay. He spoke it and someone else edited and wrote the essay.
f. I like those pieces by the new Jeter site. But (he said, sticking his chest out with some pride) The Players’ Tribune didn’t invent the first-person athlete column. Nor did The MMQB. But our site did a score of them when Jeter was still a shortstop and not a publisher—by Richard Sherman, on multiple topics; by Russell Wilson, on race in the NFL; by journeyman defensive end Austen Lane, a gut-puncher of a piece on what it’s like be cut; by Lydon Murtha, a teammate of Richie Incognito and Jonathan Martin, on life on the inside of the bullying in Miami. And others. Just to set the record straight.
Were these essays all ghost written by someone else too? If so, I can see why Peter has no issue with an athlete getting credit for something another person has actually edited and written.
g. I really like the Yanks’ top two, Tanaka and Pineda. But is C.C. Sabathia even going to be in the rotation by June?
(Bengoodfella uses his psychic skills) Yes, he will be in the rotation in June.
h. Big, big blow if the Red Sox have lost catcher Christian Vasquez, who I keep reading is a Molina-type defender and arm.
Peter King thinks this was a huge blow to the Red Sox based on something that Peter King has read about this player, and while he has no firsthand knowledge of this player's abilities, based on what others say it was a huge blow, so Peter is just going to adopt that as the truth based on information he doesn't really know.
I can't believe the Braves traded Andy Marte a few years ago, a guy who I kept reading was just like Aramis Ramirez.
Not that Boston’s going to have enough pitching to win this year, but catchers can make pitchers better.
#analysis
l. Is baseball serious? Opening night next Sunday at Wrigley … and game two, another night game two nights later in Chicago? Why torture fans—and, presumably, frozen-fingered pitchers? Luckily for MLB, the long-range forecast is for temperatures in the 40s both nights.
Nope Peter, it is all a joke that is being played on you. Opening night is actually in Bermuda at an undisclosed location between two teams who were last seen playing in the CollegeInsider.com tournament.
p. Tom Brady cliff-diving one day, playing pickup basketball with Michael Jordan the next. How’s your off-season going?
I have a full-time job that doesn't have an offseason and I have to work year around. So my offseason is going terribly because it doesn't exist. #alwaysriseandgrind
r. Coffeenerdness: Why’d you take away the hazelnut macchiato, Starbucks? That was my occasional guilty pleasure. No more.
Starbucks should continue to make the hazelnut macchiato in every Starbucks in the United States, just for Peter King, because who knows when Peter is liable to wander into any Starbucks in the United States. In fact, baristas at Starbucks should only be trained on how to make coffee-flavored drinks that Peter King likes. Everyone else can just get used to it.
v. Just when you think you’ve seen every possible horrendous thing done by human beings, a pilot crashes a jetliner into a mountain on purpose, and 150 die.
He was actually the co-pilot, but point taken.
The Adieu Haiku
Yo! Trade Adrian.
Forty-five mill’s too much for
a back who’s thirty.
These haikus are the sportswriting equivalent of a turd sundae as dessert after a four-course meal of expired lettuce, rancid meat, and squirrel testicles for an appetizer.
Friday, March 27, 2015
3 comments Despite His Having Four Super Bowl Rings, Dan Shaughnessy Still Thinks He's Smarter Than Bill Belichick
Dan Shaughnessy uses the phrase "The Patriot Way" in this column. I am betting he does this just to annoy people like me. Dan doesn't like that the Patriots refused to pick up the option for Darrelle Revis and then weren't able to sign him in free agency. He makes this clear through snark and discussing how the "system" is more important than the players, as if this strategy hasn't worked for the Patriots in the past. So despite the Patriots having just won a Super Bowl, Dan spends some time being snarky and suggesting he knows what is better for the Patriots then the incompetent Bill Belichick does. After all, it's been a whole couple of months and the Patriots still haven't won another Super Bowl. Dan thinks the Patriots may never win another Super Bowl now that they have allowed Revis to go to the Jets in free agency. Someone should do something about how Bill Belichick is wrecking the Patriots team.
The Patriots just lost their best defensive player.
No, they re-signed Devin McCourty and Chandler Jones is still on the roster. Jerod Mayo is also coming back from injury, so it seems the Patriots still have quite a few guys who can be considered their best defensive player.
Greedy Darrelle is going to New York for a five-year, $70 million contract. He’s going to make $48 million over the first three years of his Jet contract. He’s now got $39 million in guaranteed money coming his way.
Yes, of course Darrelle Revis is greedy for maximizing his market value. We all know Dan Shaughnessy would NEVER take an opportunity to earn more income and maximize his value. Never. Ever. So fuck Darrelle Revis for trying to make as much money as possible during his career. This makes him greedy and not a good businessman.
The clever Patriots would not go for that. They reportedly stopped short at a guarantee of $35 million.
So, if the reports are true, this New England team, flush with cash, lost its best defensive player for $4 million.
The Patriots had around $14 million in cap space around the time that Revis was signed by the Jets. I'm not sure that would count as being flush with cap space. They couldn't afford to sign Revis to the contract that the Jets signed him to. Revis is earning $16 million during the 2015 season. It seemed pretty well-known, at least to me, that the Patriots couldn't keep both McCourty and Revis. Of course, when has Dan allowed reality to seep into his criticisms?
Naturally, you are all OK with this. You are Patriots fans. Your team just won a Super Bowl. You subscribe to a long-standing policy that your team will not pay stupid money for talent. Sure, the Patriots have the money, but that’s not the point.
No, it is the point. The point is that just because the Patriots have the money it doesn't mean they should spend that money.
The point is that players don’t matter. It is the system that matters. The system wins Super Bowls. The coach wins Super Bowls. The owner wins Super Bowls.
The quarterback wins Super Bowls too. At some point when this has been proven incorrect, then I would love for Dan Shaughnessy to point out when. The Patriots have shown they don't have to keep players who have hit free agency as long as they are able to find other players to serve as replacements. Dan is snarky about the system, but it works, so his snark is simply a sarcastic statement of fact.
Your team doesn’t do the foolish things that other teams do. And your team just won the Super Bowl. So who is going to question the Patriot way? Only a fool.
Or someone (namely, a sportswriter named "Dan Shaughnessy") who questions every move Boston-area teams make that don't match the conventional wisdom of what a team should do. Then when he is proven to be incorrect about his questioning of these moves, he simply moves on to the next issue he can gripe about sarcastically.
Clearly, the Jets are idiots. Again.
Maybe. Was the Jets' issue last year at the cornerback position? Partly, but that's a lot of money for a cornerback who the Jets already refused to pay just a few years ago. They may not be idiots, but it's a big investment in one player.
The Patriots rented Revis for one year and they got what they wanted. They won a Super Bowl. So line up and guzzle the Patriots Kool-Aid.
This is Dan's defense mechanism. He gets snarky and says something like, "Well, it worked for the Red Sox didn't it? So every move they make from now on will work, won't it?" in a desperate effort to lower the bar and move the goal posts, while distracting the reader from the fact Dan's upcoming criticism has no validity. No one is guzzling the Patriots Kool-Aid. They won a Super Bowl with Revis. Their plan worked.
Never mind that the Patriots could keep on winning Super Bowls and keep their best defensive player.
Could they though? Really think about that, Dan. Think hard. I'm not sure the Patriots could have kept Revis and McCourty.
It’s more important that they win at the negotiating table. It’s all about the value.
While being sarcastic in an effort to make the Patriots seem as though they are cheap, Dan is missing the point. It is important to win at the negotiating table. Good teams keep an eye on their salary cap situation for this year and 2-3 years down the road. It IS all about value. Losing at the negotiating table is how teams end up with millions in dead money which restricts their ability to make offseason moves that improve the team.
Dan just doesn't understand. Maybe the Patriots are cheap, but it works. Maybe Dan would have a point if it weren't for two small issues:
1. The Patriots' strategy of being cheap has paid off for almost 15 years now. They have been the most successful NFL franchise since 2001 using this strategy.
2. It is all about value at the bargaining table in order to sustain the long-term success of a team.
It’s about the value because the Patriots are not only the best team on the field. They are the smartest. They are the most clever. They are playing chess while the other dimwits are playing checkers.
And now Dan is trying to overstate the case in order to enter the Theater of the Absurd since his opinion in the real world has been proven to sound stupid.
Pity those foolish Steelers and Giants and Ravens and Broncos. And Jets. They do not know how to do business. The Patriots know how to win and they know how to do business.
But it's true. The Patriots do know how to do business. The results on the field support this point of view. The Steelers, Giants, Ravens and Broncos aren't foolish. It's not a zero-sum game like Dan is desperately trying to prove is true. The Patriots aren't smarter than every other team in the same way McDonald's isn't smarter than Wal-Mart, Target or Burger King. They are all successful, it's just they each have a different way of doing business. Target isn't stupid because Wal-Mart is smart. The same theory applies here. The Patriots have a good way of doing business that is proven to be successful. It doesn't mean other NFL teams don't have a good way of doing business themselves.
Everybody in this NFL-crazed nation knew the Patriots were never going to pay Revis $20 million for 2015, with a salary-cap hit of $25 million. But not everybody knew the Jets were going to lose their minds. That’s why they are the Jets.
So the Patriots should have given Revis the money the Jets gave Revis and this would have made the Patriots smart, but because the Jets gave Revis this money then they are losing their minds? I don't even understand the logic behind this comment.
They just added a great cornerback to their woeful, non-contending team. And the smarter-than-everybody Patriots no doubt believe they have a valid tampering claim against New York. It’s all there on tape. We heard Jets owner Woody Johnson gushing about Revis in December. Not cool.
Dan's basic point seem to be that he is going to talk sarcastically about how smart the Patriots are compared to the Jets, while seeming to truly believe the Patriots are smarter than the Jets...or something like that. Maybe not. Maybe the Patriots would have been smart to re-sign Revis, all while the Jets were dumb for re-signing Revis.
So now it’s time to fire up the Patriots media cartel. Time to demonize Revis.
You mean by calling him "greedy"? Or was that Dan making fun of Patriots fans for calling Revis greedy while not actually calling Revis greedy, unless Dan suddenly decides he does think Revis is greedy, in which case Dan was completely serious in calling him "Greedy Revis"?
Has anybody noticed that Revis only had two interceptions last year? Clearly, this guy is overrated. Right? And now we know for sure that he cares only about money. If he really cared about winning football, he would have stayed here for less. But no. Ultimately, Revis showed his true colors. He chose money over legacy. What a loser.
Dan is changing tone here almost as much as I change tone. It's difficult to keep up with. Clearly, he is being sarcastic right now about Revis being a loser. Most NFL players care only about money, it's just Revis is in a position to actually make more money.
If I may stray from the party line for a moment, there might be some legitimate questions here. If the Patriots were willing to make Devin McCourty the highest-paid safety (five years, $47.5 million), in football, why did they draw the line on Revis, who is better at corner than McCourty is at safety?
Perhaps, and this is a point that Dan seems to consistently miss, the Patriots could really not afford to keep both of them. McCourty was cheaper, and while not as talented as Revis, he allowed the Patriots to do something defensively that couldn't be replaced with another safety that was on the market or in the draft. Revis may be a better corner than McCourty is a safety, but it may be easier for the Patriots to replace the production of Revis than it is to replace McCourty's production. There are outside forces which are present and can move a player's value to his current team up or down.
And how are they going to take the hit of also losing Brandon Browner in the defensive backfield?
They may commit fewer defensive holding or pass interference penalties.
Revis changed everything in 2014. In the six seasons after the undefeated season of 2007, the Patriots were good, but never great; not even when they got back to the Super Bowl in Indianapolis against the Giants. They were always good enough to win the AFC East (like signing up for AOL), but they were not good enough to keep good offenses off the field when it mattered.
Oh, okay. Thanks for clearing up that the Patriots were good, but never great, when they went 72-24 over a six year span. The Patriots were 4-5 in the playoffs during that time and what happened again in the 7th year after the Patriots went undefeated? Oh yeah, they won the Super Bowl. I was always confused by whether the Patriots were good or great and always thought a 75% win rate in the regular season over six years was a pretty great record. It turns out that record is only good. I'm glad Dan Shaughnessy is here to point out the truths as his delusional mind sees them as it relates to a point he is looking to prove.
In 2014, Revis enabled the Patriots to play any kind of defense Belichick wanted. Revis routinely erased the best receiver on the other team. Calvin Johnson. A.J. Green, T.Y. Hilton. Revis got more Pro Bowl votes than any corner in the NFL. More votes than flavor-of-the-year Richard Sherman.
Richard Sherman is still a pretty good cornerback. I will not allow myself to be distracted by Dan Shaughnessy's shot at Richard Sherman based on such an idiotic metric as Pro Bowl votes.
We know the Patriots don’t like to work with a gun at their heads. They like value. They don’t spend to the cap and they don’t like to overpay. Just because somebody else is willing to pay stupid money, why should New England?
It really is a good strategy if an NFL team can continue winning games while using this strategy. Why should the Patriots overpay for a player simply because another team chooses to use this strategy in order to acquire or keep a player? Because acquiring big name players and spending money is exciting and keeps the local beat writers with fresh stories they can write during free agency?
Ordinarily, this thinking works with the Patriots and their fans. It’s “In Bill We Trust.’’ Fans support the team when Wes Welker leaves and when Logan Mankins is traded. Usually, this blind loyalty is rewarded.
Most always this blind loyalty has been rewarded. As long as fans don't hold the Patriots to the absurd standard of "Have they won the Super Bowl every single season?" then the blind loyalty has been rewarded with nearly a decade-and-a-half of sustained success. I can't see in what world there should be criticism of how the Patriots deal with personnel. Regardless of how strong the AFC East has been, the Patriots have won four Super Bowls since 2001 and their strategy on how they value players has proven to work. It's not easy to be as good as the Patriots have been for as long of time as they have been good. Of course, Dan has no perspective and just assumes because the Patriots haven't won the Super Bowl 10 more times in the last 14 years, then a different strategy in valuing their personnel would have changed that. He sees the Patriots' way of thinking as the problem surrounding why the Patriots aren't MORE successful, as opposed to viewing this thinking as the reason the Patriots have been this successful. Dan sucks.
It seemed that Revis was different. He was the best player at a crucial position. He delivered a Super Bowl.
You would have thought he was a guy the Patriots could not afford to lose.
When an NFL team says, "We afford to lose this guy" because of that player's perceived value, then that is how teams often end up overpaying for players it turns out they could have afforded to lose, even if they didn't want to lose that player.
But there is no such player. It’s not about any one player. It’s about the system.
Which is a system, that like it or not, has been proven to work for the Patriots.
The Patriots usually win, and sometimes lose, but at the bargaining table the Patriot Way is the only way.
There is no real "Patriot Way," but the Patriots do have a philosophy that seems to work. Dan Shaughnessy, of course, thinks that HIS way is better than the Patriots' way of doing business. After all, the Patriots haven't won the Super Bowl 10 times in the past 14 years. That's quite the record of failure. Just imagine how successful the Patriots could have been if they had utilized the Shaughnessy Way of dealing with personnel. They may have created a dynasty over the last decade-and-a-half.
The Patriots just lost their best defensive player.
No, they re-signed Devin McCourty and Chandler Jones is still on the roster. Jerod Mayo is also coming back from injury, so it seems the Patriots still have quite a few guys who can be considered their best defensive player.
Greedy Darrelle is going to New York for a five-year, $70 million contract. He’s going to make $48 million over the first three years of his Jet contract. He’s now got $39 million in guaranteed money coming his way.
Yes, of course Darrelle Revis is greedy for maximizing his market value. We all know Dan Shaughnessy would NEVER take an opportunity to earn more income and maximize his value. Never. Ever. So fuck Darrelle Revis for trying to make as much money as possible during his career. This makes him greedy and not a good businessman.
The clever Patriots would not go for that. They reportedly stopped short at a guarantee of $35 million.
So, if the reports are true, this New England team, flush with cash, lost its best defensive player for $4 million.
The Patriots had around $14 million in cap space around the time that Revis was signed by the Jets. I'm not sure that would count as being flush with cap space. They couldn't afford to sign Revis to the contract that the Jets signed him to. Revis is earning $16 million during the 2015 season. It seemed pretty well-known, at least to me, that the Patriots couldn't keep both McCourty and Revis. Of course, when has Dan allowed reality to seep into his criticisms?
Naturally, you are all OK with this. You are Patriots fans. Your team just won a Super Bowl. You subscribe to a long-standing policy that your team will not pay stupid money for talent. Sure, the Patriots have the money, but that’s not the point.
No, it is the point. The point is that just because the Patriots have the money it doesn't mean they should spend that money.
The point is that players don’t matter. It is the system that matters. The system wins Super Bowls. The coach wins Super Bowls. The owner wins Super Bowls.
The quarterback wins Super Bowls too. At some point when this has been proven incorrect, then I would love for Dan Shaughnessy to point out when. The Patriots have shown they don't have to keep players who have hit free agency as long as they are able to find other players to serve as replacements. Dan is snarky about the system, but it works, so his snark is simply a sarcastic statement of fact.
Your team doesn’t do the foolish things that other teams do. And your team just won the Super Bowl. So who is going to question the Patriot way? Only a fool.
Or someone (namely, a sportswriter named "Dan Shaughnessy") who questions every move Boston-area teams make that don't match the conventional wisdom of what a team should do. Then when he is proven to be incorrect about his questioning of these moves, he simply moves on to the next issue he can gripe about sarcastically.
Clearly, the Jets are idiots. Again.
Maybe. Was the Jets' issue last year at the cornerback position? Partly, but that's a lot of money for a cornerback who the Jets already refused to pay just a few years ago. They may not be idiots, but it's a big investment in one player.
The Patriots rented Revis for one year and they got what they wanted. They won a Super Bowl. So line up and guzzle the Patriots Kool-Aid.
This is Dan's defense mechanism. He gets snarky and says something like, "Well, it worked for the Red Sox didn't it? So every move they make from now on will work, won't it?" in a desperate effort to lower the bar and move the goal posts, while distracting the reader from the fact Dan's upcoming criticism has no validity. No one is guzzling the Patriots Kool-Aid. They won a Super Bowl with Revis. Their plan worked.
Never mind that the Patriots could keep on winning Super Bowls and keep their best defensive player.
Could they though? Really think about that, Dan. Think hard. I'm not sure the Patriots could have kept Revis and McCourty.
It’s more important that they win at the negotiating table. It’s all about the value.
While being sarcastic in an effort to make the Patriots seem as though they are cheap, Dan is missing the point. It is important to win at the negotiating table. Good teams keep an eye on their salary cap situation for this year and 2-3 years down the road. It IS all about value. Losing at the negotiating table is how teams end up with millions in dead money which restricts their ability to make offseason moves that improve the team.
Dan just doesn't understand. Maybe the Patriots are cheap, but it works. Maybe Dan would have a point if it weren't for two small issues:
1. The Patriots' strategy of being cheap has paid off for almost 15 years now. They have been the most successful NFL franchise since 2001 using this strategy.
2. It is all about value at the bargaining table in order to sustain the long-term success of a team.
It’s about the value because the Patriots are not only the best team on the field. They are the smartest. They are the most clever. They are playing chess while the other dimwits are playing checkers.
And now Dan is trying to overstate the case in order to enter the Theater of the Absurd since his opinion in the real world has been proven to sound stupid.
Pity those foolish Steelers and Giants and Ravens and Broncos. And Jets. They do not know how to do business. The Patriots know how to win and they know how to do business.
But it's true. The Patriots do know how to do business. The results on the field support this point of view. The Steelers, Giants, Ravens and Broncos aren't foolish. It's not a zero-sum game like Dan is desperately trying to prove is true. The Patriots aren't smarter than every other team in the same way McDonald's isn't smarter than Wal-Mart, Target or Burger King. They are all successful, it's just they each have a different way of doing business. Target isn't stupid because Wal-Mart is smart. The same theory applies here. The Patriots have a good way of doing business that is proven to be successful. It doesn't mean other NFL teams don't have a good way of doing business themselves.
Everybody in this NFL-crazed nation knew the Patriots were never going to pay Revis $20 million for 2015, with a salary-cap hit of $25 million. But not everybody knew the Jets were going to lose their minds. That’s why they are the Jets.
So the Patriots should have given Revis the money the Jets gave Revis and this would have made the Patriots smart, but because the Jets gave Revis this money then they are losing their minds? I don't even understand the logic behind this comment.
They just added a great cornerback to their woeful, non-contending team. And the smarter-than-everybody Patriots no doubt believe they have a valid tampering claim against New York. It’s all there on tape. We heard Jets owner Woody Johnson gushing about Revis in December. Not cool.
Dan's basic point seem to be that he is going to talk sarcastically about how smart the Patriots are compared to the Jets, while seeming to truly believe the Patriots are smarter than the Jets...or something like that. Maybe not. Maybe the Patriots would have been smart to re-sign Revis, all while the Jets were dumb for re-signing Revis.
So now it’s time to fire up the Patriots media cartel. Time to demonize Revis.
You mean by calling him "greedy"? Or was that Dan making fun of Patriots fans for calling Revis greedy while not actually calling Revis greedy, unless Dan suddenly decides he does think Revis is greedy, in which case Dan was completely serious in calling him "Greedy Revis"?
Has anybody noticed that Revis only had two interceptions last year? Clearly, this guy is overrated. Right? And now we know for sure that he cares only about money. If he really cared about winning football, he would have stayed here for less. But no. Ultimately, Revis showed his true colors. He chose money over legacy. What a loser.
Dan is changing tone here almost as much as I change tone. It's difficult to keep up with. Clearly, he is being sarcastic right now about Revis being a loser. Most NFL players care only about money, it's just Revis is in a position to actually make more money.
If I may stray from the party line for a moment, there might be some legitimate questions here. If the Patriots were willing to make Devin McCourty the highest-paid safety (five years, $47.5 million), in football, why did they draw the line on Revis, who is better at corner than McCourty is at safety?
Perhaps, and this is a point that Dan seems to consistently miss, the Patriots could really not afford to keep both of them. McCourty was cheaper, and while not as talented as Revis, he allowed the Patriots to do something defensively that couldn't be replaced with another safety that was on the market or in the draft. Revis may be a better corner than McCourty is a safety, but it may be easier for the Patriots to replace the production of Revis than it is to replace McCourty's production. There are outside forces which are present and can move a player's value to his current team up or down.
And how are they going to take the hit of also losing Brandon Browner in the defensive backfield?
They may commit fewer defensive holding or pass interference penalties.
Revis changed everything in 2014. In the six seasons after the undefeated season of 2007, the Patriots were good, but never great; not even when they got back to the Super Bowl in Indianapolis against the Giants. They were always good enough to win the AFC East (like signing up for AOL), but they were not good enough to keep good offenses off the field when it mattered.
Oh, okay. Thanks for clearing up that the Patriots were good, but never great, when they went 72-24 over a six year span. The Patriots were 4-5 in the playoffs during that time and what happened again in the 7th year after the Patriots went undefeated? Oh yeah, they won the Super Bowl. I was always confused by whether the Patriots were good or great and always thought a 75% win rate in the regular season over six years was a pretty great record. It turns out that record is only good. I'm glad Dan Shaughnessy is here to point out the truths as his delusional mind sees them as it relates to a point he is looking to prove.
In 2014, Revis enabled the Patriots to play any kind of defense Belichick wanted. Revis routinely erased the best receiver on the other team. Calvin Johnson. A.J. Green, T.Y. Hilton. Revis got more Pro Bowl votes than any corner in the NFL. More votes than flavor-of-the-year Richard Sherman.
Richard Sherman is still a pretty good cornerback. I will not allow myself to be distracted by Dan Shaughnessy's shot at Richard Sherman based on such an idiotic metric as Pro Bowl votes.
We know the Patriots don’t like to work with a gun at their heads. They like value. They don’t spend to the cap and they don’t like to overpay. Just because somebody else is willing to pay stupid money, why should New England?
It really is a good strategy if an NFL team can continue winning games while using this strategy. Why should the Patriots overpay for a player simply because another team chooses to use this strategy in order to acquire or keep a player? Because acquiring big name players and spending money is exciting and keeps the local beat writers with fresh stories they can write during free agency?
Ordinarily, this thinking works with the Patriots and their fans. It’s “In Bill We Trust.’’ Fans support the team when Wes Welker leaves and when Logan Mankins is traded. Usually, this blind loyalty is rewarded.
Most always this blind loyalty has been rewarded. As long as fans don't hold the Patriots to the absurd standard of "Have they won the Super Bowl every single season?" then the blind loyalty has been rewarded with nearly a decade-and-a-half of sustained success. I can't see in what world there should be criticism of how the Patriots deal with personnel. Regardless of how strong the AFC East has been, the Patriots have won four Super Bowls since 2001 and their strategy on how they value players has proven to work. It's not easy to be as good as the Patriots have been for as long of time as they have been good. Of course, Dan has no perspective and just assumes because the Patriots haven't won the Super Bowl 10 more times in the last 14 years, then a different strategy in valuing their personnel would have changed that. He sees the Patriots' way of thinking as the problem surrounding why the Patriots aren't MORE successful, as opposed to viewing this thinking as the reason the Patriots have been this successful. Dan sucks.
It seemed that Revis was different. He was the best player at a crucial position. He delivered a Super Bowl.
You would have thought he was a guy the Patriots could not afford to lose.
When an NFL team says, "We afford to lose this guy" because of that player's perceived value, then that is how teams often end up overpaying for players it turns out they could have afforded to lose, even if they didn't want to lose that player.
But there is no such player. It’s not about any one player. It’s about the system.
Which is a system, that like it or not, has been proven to work for the Patriots.
The Patriots usually win, and sometimes lose, but at the bargaining table the Patriot Way is the only way.
There is no real "Patriot Way," but the Patriots do have a philosophy that seems to work. Dan Shaughnessy, of course, thinks that HIS way is better than the Patriots' way of doing business. After all, the Patriots haven't won the Super Bowl 10 times in the past 14 years. That's quite the record of failure. Just imagine how successful the Patriots could have been if they had utilized the Shaughnessy Way of dealing with personnel. They may have created a dynasty over the last decade-and-a-half.
Tuesday, March 24, 2015
2 comments MMQB Review: Interview with the NFL Vampire Edition
We still have one open spot in the fantasy baseball league and if anyone
wants to join then send me an email to bengoodfella@yahoo.com and I
will send you an invite. That will put the league at 10 people and I think that's a good number for this year.
Peter King discussed Darrelle Revis signing with the New York Jets in last week's MMQB. Peter also included a travel note that someone else experienced, and it is always pleasant and fun to read about someone else's experiences third-hand, specifically when the reader doesn't know that person at all. Peter thinks this is one of the zaniest offseasons that he can recall, which if I recall correctly, is something he seems to say every NFL offseason. This week Peter talks with Roger Goodell, shocks us with the conclusion out of work NFL players may be out of work for a reason, and talks briefly about Chris Borland's decision to retire. The real gem is Peter's conversation with Roger Goodell where Goodell reveals absolutely nothing. Of course, since Goodell is ALWAYS open to speaking to the media (as he claimed at the Super Bowl) then I wouldn't expect Goodell to say anything new and an interview with Goodell isn't really a big deal. Right? I mean, Goodell is ALWAYS available to talk with the media, so anything Goodell would say to Peter King is just stuff the public has heard before. He's such an available guy.
Roger Goodell’s season from Hades is over, and don’t expect him to share many memories of the nightmare. I tried the other day, and got nowhere.
Roger Goodell on January 30, 2015.
"I'm available to the media almost every day of my job professionally."
So he became available, good for him. But he won't reveal anything to the media, you know, like he seems to expect Marshawn Lynch to reveal when meeting with the media because:
“When you’re in the NFL, you have an obligation, an obligation to the fans. It is part of your job, and there are things in all of our jobs that we have to do that we don’t necessarily want to do.”
Fortunately, Goodell is in a position where the rules he makes don't apply to him. What a country!
In a 75-minute interview with The MMQB in his Park Avenue office in New York, Goodell seemed at ease and not wounded by the raging torrent of criticism that hounded him from the time he made his decision last July to suspend Baltimore running back Ray Rice for two games for knocking his wife unconscious in a New Jersey elevator. If he is wounded—and how can he not be—he’s not saying.
Why would Roger Goodell be wounded by the criticism? To be wounded would be to assume that Goodell (a) cares what anyone thinks about him or (b) is self-aware enough to understand that his decisions aren't sent down by tablet from God himself and that he very well could be fallible. Goodell hasn't shown that either assumption can be seen as a true characteristic he possesses.
Asked what his hopes are for 2015, Goodell said: “To some extent it’s that the things that we’re doing are working.
But Goodell is savvy enough to know there’s been damage to the league office, and a lot of it, and he’s going to have to have a damn good 2015 to restore faith in the league—and in him. “We have to meet the expectation of our fans,’’ he said. “They deserve it. We have to show them that their faith and trust in us is well placed.”
Ah yes, the use of "us" and "we" when it's Roger Goodell that many fans lack faith in and he is the one who needs to meet the expectations of the fans. Goodell accepts that salary to be the commissioner, but when things go wrong and the perception of his decisions isn't good, all of a sudden it's a team effort to fix them.
I’m going to run an edited transcript of Goodell’s remarks to me on Page 2 of the column. But first, a Cliff’s Notes version of the notable things from our conversation:
Goodell is available almost every day to the media, so I'm sure this is all stuff we've heard before.
On whether he ever considered resigning last year: “No. N-O. No.”
Because Goodell would voluntarily give up earning multi-millions and in the process thereby subjugating his ego and admitting he was wrong. Where's the fun in that?
Goodell said he thinks league-hired investigator Ted Wells “is getting near the end” of his probe into the inflation levels of footballs in the AFC Championship Game, a story that’s hung over the Patriots and the league for the past nine weeks.
No really, have him take his time. At this point, few people probably care what Wells finds out and that's probably Goodell's intent anyway.
One storyline during the deflated-balls saga was that the league was trying to catch the Patriots in the act of using the balls, and suspected prior to the AFC title game that the team was taking air out of the footballs before using them in games. Countered Goodell: “I was not personally aware of it until after the game.”
Based on the past year's worth of information about what Goodell claims to know and not know, it seems like Goodell really isn't informed about what's going on in the NFL. It could cause a more jaded person to wonder if Goodell is really that clueless about ongoing NFL investigations and whether a better commissioner would make himself more aware and thereby more accountable. But hey, Goodell can't be accountable if he doesn't possess the required information to be accountable, right?
The NFL is “looking at more games” in 2016 in Europe than the three scheduled in 2015, he said.
Of course the NFL is looking at more games in Europe. Because by golly, if those damn Europeans don't like American football then they'll be forced to like the sport, all in the name of "expansion" and increased profits for the NFL. Sure, NFL ticket holders will lose a few home games, but that's just a small price to pay for the NFL making as much money as possible. It's all in the best interests of the fans...of course.
Goodell said he’s “not concerned” with Jameis Winston, the possible first pick in the draft, staying home in Alabama with his family on draft night instead of being at the draft.
Oh good, so Winston has permission from Roger Goodell to be with his family on draft night. I'm sure Winston will sleep better knowing he has Roger's full go-ahead to spend the draft with his family.
The MMQB: What’s the lesson you take from easily your most trying year as commissioner?
Goodell: I don’t know if you could put one or two … One of the things we always focus on is,
Uh-oh, things are going wrong so here comes the use of "we" because the team is wrong, it's not just Roger Goodell who is wrong. Writers like Bill Simmons use "we" when he's wrong, but it's good to see a person like Roger Goodell buy into the team atmosphere in order to shirk responsibility from himself on to "the team" when decisions made by the NFL are wrong as well. Nothing makes a person buy into "we" and the team concept like a wrong or bad decision having been made. I wonder if "we" all have their name on Roger's paycheck?
By the way, Roger's answer contains 10 "we's" and 1 "we're."
Two, in this case, at least in the personal conduct area, we were too reliant on law enforcement. We were completely reliant on law enforcement. We can’t be in this circumstance, because our criminal justice system has to make different types of decisions on different standards. We have to have personal conduct that represents the standards in the NFL.
The NFL did have a personal conduct that represents the standards in the NFL. It's just the public thought these standards were too low, so Roger Goodell had to scramble during the Ray Rice situation in order to pretend the NFL really had higher standards, and he just didn't have enough information to make an informed decision prior to making a decision.
The MMQB: What would you say in 2014 was your low point?
Goodell: I don’t know. I wouldn’t. I haven’t even thought about that.
As I said previously, this would require self-awareness, as well as some sense of reflection. There's no need for Roger Goodell to engage in either tactic because that would be admitting he perhaps he's made a mistake that requires self-awareness or reflection to correct and he isn't willing to do that.
The MMQB: You had a few of them.
Goodell: I just said, I haven’t thought about that.
Hey, let's not get snippy there buddy. I know you have given this information out many times before because you are SO available to the media, but try to have patience when Peter is asking a semi-tough question (which is generally against his nature).
I think when you’re doing this job, you’ve got to do this job and you take highs and lows and you work to address them as quickly as possible and as thoroughly as possible.
So Peter said it had been nine weeks since Ted Wells started looking into the improperly inflated footballs that the Patriots may or may not have been using?
The MMQB: How difficult was it personally on you?
Goodell: We’re sorry we got to the place we got to [and] the way we got to it, but that is something that we now can look back at and build on. … We’re actually starting to see it. People are saying, “People should adopt the personal conduct policy of the NFL in other institutions and other industries.” That’s rewarding to some extent.
I've heard no one say this when this statement wasn't then followed by laughter, as it is clearly a joke designed to poke fun at the NFL.
The MMQB: Did you use anybody in 2014 as what you would call a sounding board, an advisor, to help you through the tough times?
Goodell: … Well, one of the good things about having those is that you don’t tell people who they are, because then they aren’t quite as open … I think that’s how you develop relationships that are valuable.
It was Tony Dungy, wasn't it?
I don't know if Peter is salty because he is bitter for the whole report he screwed up this summer about Ray Rice and the conversation that went on between Rice, Janay Rice and Roger Goodell, but he does ask Goodell tougher questions when he feels Goodell is saying nothing. Goodell says nothing often.
The MMQB: Speaking of investigations, we’re at the two-month anniversary of the AFC Championship Game and the investigation into allegations that the Patriots deflated the football or footballs in that game. How much thought did you give that you needed to get it resolved so it’s not hanging over the league? It seems like it’s been hanging over the league for two months. Was there any thought in your mind to try to get it resolved that week so that it didn’t mar anything associated with the Super Bowl?
Goodell: No. I think the most important thing is to get the right information, to get the facts and to get the truth. And not to make any judgments until you get that. We have been very careful on that.
The MMQB: Any indication when that will be?
Goodell: I haven’t spoken to him for several weeks. I think he’s getting near the end, but there’s no requirement when. …
So there's no requirement when Ted Wells has to actually give the report to the NFL? That's great because it creates an environment of accountability in that the commissioner doesn't seem to have a clue what's going on and he doesn't care when he gets clued in. What Goodell isn't told yet can't hurt him, right?
The MMQB: Is two months to investigate that too long?
Goodell: Again, I think that if you’re going to be thorough, it takes time. You’re having to meet with a lot of people. I guess it’s always too long, because you want to get to that issue and deal with it. It’s important not to exert any pressure to short-circuit or do anything other than be fair and transparent.
Yes, be transparent. It's very important. Did Roger Goodell say this as he destroyed Spygate tapes or was he closing his eyes pretending he didn't see the Ray Rice tape when he spoke about transparency?
The MMQB: Can you say that the first time that you heard about this was after the game?
Goodell: Yes.
Goodell can say it. Who knows if it's the truth?
The MMQB: You know that there’s a storyline out there that you knew about the deflating and wanted to catch them in the act.
Goodell: Let’s just short circuit this a little bit. I’m not going to get into what we knew and when we knew it because that’s part of what he’s investigating. … I can tell you that I was not personally aware of it until after the game.
You know, for a powerful man Roger Goodell sure doesn't know a hell of a lot of things the commissioner of the NFL should know before they happen.
What's interesting is that Goodell will talk about how he has no knowledge of an event that is seen as a negative for the NFL, but he's quick to point out how he's very proactive and full of information in situations where it makes him look good. In situations where the NFL doesn't look so good, Goodell is kept in the dark.
The MMQB: Do you get involved much with things like that with the competition committee?
Goodell: I just spent 45 minutes on the phone with [competition committee co-chair] Jeff Fisher last night. I talk with Rich McKay or other committee members, John Mara. … I’m meeting with them in advance of Sunday.
Roger Goodell is going to meet with the competition committee IN ADVANCE of their meeting to ensure they can talk about what is and what is not a catch. Roger Goodell is dedicated to making sure everyone knows what is and is not a catch. Did the Patriots deflate footballs and affect the fair competition of the game? Fuck if he knows. He's just waiting for someone to give him some information about that subject.
The MMQB: Is it logical to think that you would propose an 18-game schedule at any point in the near future?
Goodell: I think it’s one of those things that we’ll continue to evaluate the season structure. … The real short-term focus is on the quality of the preseason. Do we need four preseason games anymore—for competitive reasons or any other reason? And I think that there’s a growing sentiment that you don’t.
It's not a growing sentiment at this point. That sentiment has already grown up, is about to graduate college and is looking for a full-time job.
But can you get this done and can you do it in two or three games? I think that people are more comfortable with three. So do we need that? Okay, that’s one part of the schedule. The rest is the regular season and the rest is the postseason. So I think all of these are interrelated. You have to evaluate all of them. We haven’t spent a lot of time on 18 games in the last couple of years.
It's interesting how much information and research Goodell puts into ideas like the 18 game schedule and what is a catch, while Peter gets short answers as it pertains to questions about deflated footballs and any mistakes the NFL has made.
The MMQB: Is there one city that is really aggressive about having it?
(The NFL Draft is the topic here)
Goodell: Canton, Ohio. It’s awesome!
It sounds awesome! I think Roger Goodell is moving the draft around just in the hopes that citizens of each city will be so happy to have the draft that they forget to boo him. It's probably also his reason for trying to expand the NFL into London and other European cities. They don't hate them there...yet.
The MMQB: What leads you to believe that 2015 is going to be a better year for the NFL?
Goodell: Well, I think the first part is that we implemented a personal conduct policy in December which we think is responsive to addressing very complex issues where we acknowledged that our policy didn’t deal with those things [domestic violence issues] effectively. We brought in expertise to help us make those decisions going forward. I think there’s clarity to those issues.
Okay, maybe Goodell just says "we" a lot.
It was a competitive year that ended with the most-watched show in the history of television. So fans engaged with our game at an incredibly high level last year. We have to continue to focus on the game of football while making sure that we’re doing the right things off the field—and I’m confident that we will.
Of course Goodell is confident the NFL will do the right things on and off the field. He doesn't even admit to thinking about what the low point of the past season was for him, so like any person who lacks the ability to reflect on his mistakes or admit these mistakes, he lacks a certain perspective.
Not much to report from the first NFL veterans combine.
Takeaways from the inaugural event at the Cardinals’ practice facility in Tempe, where 105 players worked out on Sunday, picked from among 1,800 to 2,000 applicants (according to the league) for workout slots:
The biggest takeaway should be that many of these players aren't signed by an NFL team for a reason. Not playing in the NFL hasn't sharpened their skills either.
2. “There may be a few back-end-of-the-roster training-camp players,” said one GM on hand, “but that’s it.”
It's good the NFL decided to do a veteran's combine and give these guys a chance to prove they can make it in the NFL though. It's not like these veterans had to PAY to work out for NFL tea----
3. Players had to pay a fee to work out for NFL teams.
Wait, what? These players had to pay to work out for NFL teams? They had to pay real money, not fake Monopoly money? I can't believe this is a real thing that happened. Of course, the NFL does a few things well and one of those things is make money, so I shouldn't be surprised.
There’s something tawdry about that in the first place, for a multibillion-dollar enterprise such as the NFL. If the “prospects” were truly prospects, why are they paying to be seen? If it’s programming for NFL Network, or just another slow-day news story for the league to drag out (some 40 media members covered the show on Sunday), then the veterans combine is not being done for the right reason—the right reason being the league is looking for prospects. Visitors to the event walked away with one overriding thought: That was sad.
It would have been nice if Peter had this information prior to interviewing Roger Goodell so he could ask, "Why in the hell do you make veteran football players pay to try out for NFL teams? You can't use 'money' as an answer either."
I'm not sure what is more sad. The veterans who tried out and didn't look too good or the fact they had to pay to try out.
With the surprising news last week that 24-year-old Niners linebacker Chris Borland was retiring, fearful of what football could do to his long-term health, I think it’s premature to forecast the death of football. But there’s no question the Borland news is a caution flag for the league. To me, the big question is how Borland quitting at his peak and at such a young age will affect the future of the game. There have to be more parents out there questioning whether to let their sons ever play football now.
While I understand why parents wouldn't let their children play football, why would the retirement of Chris Borland affect this decision? I get Borland's retirement is a high profile rejection of a continued NFL career, but it's not like parents now have more information about how dangerous the NFL is prior to Borland's retirement. The sport is dangerous and whether Borland retired or not didn't change that. Sure, he's an example of a football player who doesn't think the sport is worth the long-term damage caused to him, but there are thousands of other football players who choose to play football regardless of the impact on their body. Shouldn't these players also have a large impact on high school players and their decision to play football?
On Friday, I spoke with the coach of the best high school football team in the Bay Area, De La Salle High’s Justin Alumbaugh, to ask him about how his players, and the parents of his players, were reacting to the stunning news about the bright 49er prospect.
“One of our best players was heartbroken about it,” said Alumbaugh. “He seemed sad all day when it happened.”
I would bet this player's sadness stemmed from the fact an emerging young player from his favorite team retired more than it stemmed from his feelings on how dangerous the sport of football is. Borland was on track to be a really good player and fans of his or the 49ers were probably unhappy with his decision to retire.
Alumbaugh has not see a decline in participation numbers at De La Salle. Then again, it’s not likely that one of the great football schools would see kids quit, or new kids not come out for the team.
Nor will there necessarily be a decline in participation on shitty high school teams either, at least not for the next few years. It was one player's decision, and I think it will take more than one retirement to reduce the participation numbers among high school kids, no matter how good the football school is.
I say this with confidence: There is no football player of a certain age who dictated the future ethos of his franchise, who put a lifetime imprint on a franchise and a city, the way Chuck Bednarik did with the Eagles and the city of Philadelphia.
The play that will live in the hearts of so many Eagles fans—including the thousands not alive to see it when it happened—occurred on Nov. 20, 1960, when the Eagles led the Giants late in the fourth quarter, trying to hang on to a 17-10 lead and secure their place atop the Eastern Division of the NFL.
The Giants were driving, and New York hero Frank Gifford, the Jeter of his day in the big city, caught a pass and headed upfield. Bednarik ran at Gifford and exploded into him chest-first, Gifford falling to the cold turf just as cold as the ground. Then, Bednarik stood over Gifford, and in a rage that would have cost his team 15 yards today, gesticulated at Gifford and screamed something like, “This game is OVER!”
Fast-forward to 15 years ago. I was in Andy Reid’s head-coaching office with the Eagles, and there was a huge rectangular photo on the wall—the shot of Bednarik exulting over the prone and motionless Gifford. Bednarik signed it for Reid.
“This game is f—— over! Chuck Bednarik, HOF 1967’’
And yes, in today's NFL Bednarik would have been suspended a game for his taunting of a fallen player and Skip Bayless would spit out hot takes about what a thug Bednarik is while everyone else agrees there is no place in the game for knocking a player out and then screaming over his body while he lays prone on the ground. But hey, it all turned out well and Bednarik is a hero instead. Let a modern player do this and the hot takes about his thuggery will fly though.
“For the most part, I thought it was a mediocre free-agent class. I think a lot of guys got paid more money than maybe they would have … because there was a lot of cap room.”
—Giants president and co-owner John Mara.
For those who missed it this week, I wrote a companion piece of anecdotal evidence on the over-rating of free agency.
But as I have written a few times during this offseason, the fact Peter considers free agency to be overrated doesn't mean he won't saturate MMQB and his THE MMQB site with coverage of free agency. People like reading about free agency, even if it is overrated. Also, Peter likes making judgments about teams based on overrated free agency.
“Do you know what happened the last time a Ravens player got a DUI? I’m getting cut tomorrow, not like you care.”
—Running back Bernard Pierce, to the officer who arrested him on a charge of driving while intoxicated on Wednesday. He was right. Pierce was cut later in the day, and picked up by the Jaguars.
Times change quickly in the NFL. Two years and one month ago, the key Baltimore backs in the Super Bowl were Ray Rice and Bernard Pierce.
An NFL player can get a DUI and then immediately find another job. What a country!
Mr. Starwood Preferred Member Travel Note of the Week
Three thoughts about my spring training visit to the Cubs’ new stadium, Sloan Park, in Mesa, Ariz.:
2. Saw a most prodigious home run by Kris Bryant, the star of spring training. He golfed a moon shot deep to left field in the first inning against the Mariners. Off King Felix. Which prompted a fan behind home plate to turn to the press box, presumably where the fan thought GM Theo Epstein would be sitting, and screamed: “Hey Theo! YOU’RE NOT SENDING THIS KID DOWN!” The Cubs can get an extra pre-free-agency year out of Bryant if he starts the season in the minors, which seems patently absurd.
It also seems like this is the result of the CBA the player's union worked out with the owners. Them's the rules, so Bryant spending another couple months in the minors is as absurd as an NFL team signing a player to a $110 million contract and that player only seeing a fraction of that money.
Then Bryant hit a second homer. Don’t want to be a relentless optimist about the Cubbies,
Which means that Peter will now be optimistic about the Cubbies.
but that teams has some great young bats. Addison Russell, the shortstop acquired in the Jeff Samardzija trade with Oakland last year, also homered.
And you know Peter had no idea who Addison Russell was before attending this spring training game and watching him homer.
3. At so many baseball games—I really noticed it here—it’s like the ticket is a cover charge for the bars around the park.
I'm sure the "baseball is dying" crowd thinks the fans need alcohol in order to make it through the boring baseball game.
This is good advice. It's also advice coming from an NFL player who played 14 seasons in the NFL and earned millions of dollars who is advising NFL players to think ahead 10 years. Wilson didn't didn't think ahead 10 years, so I could look at it as him giving advice he wished he had taken or I could look at this as advice from a player who already earned his millions playing football. It's easier to give this advice knowing you didn't make the decision you are imploring others to make. Perhaps Wilson regrets his decision to keep playing...
Ten Things I Think I Think
1. I think the best things that will be considered by the 32 team owners this week are:
a. Chicago’s proposal that both teams be guaranteed at least one possession in overtime. (A turnover on the opening kickoff of overtime would count as a possession.)
I don't see why this proposal wasn't implemented a few years ago. I see no reason why each team isn't guaranteed a possession, but the team that gets possession second has to go for a two point conversion if they score a touchdown. That way, there is more strategy involved in winning the coin flip and each team doesn't get multiple possessions in overtime. If the first team that scores goes for a two point conversion, converts, and the second team does the same (which wouldn't happen that often) then both teams have to go for the two point conversion in the second overtime. I like it when both teams get the football in overtime. That's my basic point.
c. Moving the extra point back to the 15-yard line. (At least.)
d. Narrowing the goal posts.
e. Making the line of scrimmage for the extra point or two-point conversion the one-yard line.
Obviously "c" and "e" can't both happen, but I don't like the idea of making the line of scrimmage as the one-yard line. I don't know if this will achieve the intended effect of having teams go for the two-point conversion more often. Also, moving the extra point back to the 15-yard line essentially takes the two-point conversion out of play, unless the NFL wants a rule which says if a team is going for two then they get the ball on the 2-yard line and if a team is trying an extra point then they have to try it from the 15-yard line. That seems dumb to me.
f. Though I supported the Patriots’ right to put a fifth “lineman” reporting as eligible to play anywhere on the field when it was used in the playoffs in January, I think a clearer rule is preferable. “We’re proposing that if an eligible player reports ineligible to the referee, that he must report and then play in a line in the tackle box,” said competition committee co-chair Jeff Fisher. “There was a concern on behalf of a number of clubs and number of coaches and coach [John] Madden’s subcommittee that unless we had some guidelines in place, that this thing may get out of hand.” So, a running back wouldn’t be able to play split wide, ineligible. But a tight end would be able to line up as left tackle.
THE NFL CHANGES THE RULES AFTER THE PATRIOTS WIN THE SUPER BOWL! IT'S ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF HOW THE PATRIOTS CHEAT IN ORDER TO WIN A TAINTED SUPER BOWL TITLE!
2. I think for those of your cursing me for loving the both-teams-get-a-possession proposal, my thought: The coin flip at the start of overtime still takes on too much significance, even with the receiving team needing a touchdown to win the game instead of simply a field goal. I agree that having to score a touchdown on the first possession of overtime for the game to be over is progress, but it’s still a fact that the vast majority of teams with a choice at the start of overtime are going to choose to receive, not kick off. That’s because having the ball, regardless how good the defense you’re facing, gives a team a better chance to win than playing defense. And the games are too important to give a coin flip such influence. The Packers lost the coin flip of the NFC title game and never saw the ball. I’d make the argument that the odds of Green Bay scoring a touchdown on the first possession of overtime with Aaron Rodgers quarterbacking were more than 50 percent.
True, but I would counter this 50 percent guess by pointing out the Packers did have the football late in the fourth quarter with a chance to score a touchdown and they only came away with a field goal. So I think the 50 percent guess by Peter is simply a guess. I agree with him overall, and I hate how the coin flip is so important too, but he's purely guessing that Rodgers and the Packers would have scored a touchdown on the first possession of overtime. Their fourth quarter offensive performance calls this 50% guess into question.
Remember’s Seattle’s other marquee overtime game last year? Won the coin flip against Denver, went 80 yards on the first possession for the touchdown. Pretty significant factor, the coin flip. Kept the ball out of Aaron Rodgers’ and Peyton Manning’s hands in those two games.
I think Peter really supports this rule change because his boy Peyton Manning was screwed out of a victory by losing the coin flip against Seattle this year and in a playoff game against the Chargers several years ago too. He's still sore about that playoff game against the Chargers I bet.
4. I think the way the Chargers will handle things with Rivers is smart. They’re not going to put any full-court press on him to sign this offseason—though they very much want to sign him to be a Charger for life, wherever the franchise plays long-term. But the club also knows there’s no sense in pressuring Rivers, so they’ve left the ball in his court, basically. He knows they want to talk extension, and if he changes his mind, they’ll let him come to them.
Which is a great strategy until the Chargers realize they can't afford to slap him with the franchise tag and Rivers doesn't come to the Chargers for a new contract so he becomes a free agent and chooses to sign somewhere else. I'm sure some NFL team would pay Philip Rivers if the Chargers just sit back and wait for Rivers to ask for a contract extension.
6. I think the fair thing for Greg Hardy and the Cowboys would be a six-game suspension to start the season. I have no problem with the Cowboys signing him, but his case should be a perfect example of the way the league deals with cases of domestic violence where there is significant evidence that abuse occurs. Even though Hardy sat 15 games last year, he was paid for them, and though I realize that’s a very gray area, imagine if Hardy isn’t suspended. That would mean he’d never missed a paycheck while being found guilty by a North Carolina judge for domestic violence. (The case was never heard by a jury because the victim did not show up for the subsequent trial.)
Hardy was found guilty, but it wasn't the exact same thing as a guilty verdict in this situation. It's a bizarre North Carolina law, but Hardy was never found guilty by a jury of his peers that heard the evidence of the case. I don't care and haven't cared how long Hardy will be suspended, but he was found guilty in a bench trial and his trial by jury never occurred. It's a weird situation.
7. I think the coolest part of the design for the prospective new Inglewood, Calif., stadium planned by Rams owner Stan Kroenke is the roof. According to the Los Angeles Times’ Sam Farmer, the roof will be 275 feet above the field, and it will be transparent, and it will allow breezes to flow through the stadium. It doesn’t sound like Kroenke wants a second team to share the site with him (though, as Farmer reports, the design does allow for it), and it certainly doesn’t sound like he wants to keep the Rams in St. Louis.
Poor Rams fans. I feel for them. They are stuck with Jeff Fisher and now the team will get serious about winning just as they are leaving town.
9. I think this could well surpass the $7 million guaranteed to Dwayne Harris (Who?) by the New York Giants on the Teams Do The Damndest Things In Free Agency Dept.: Charles Clay will make $24.2 million in his first two seasons playing tight end for the Buffalo Bills. Not bad for a guy with three touchdowns in Miami last year—and who averaged 4.1 receptions a game.
Wow, Peter is really using information from Clay's injury-filled 2014 season. Clay was injured pretty much the entire 2014 season. He had six touchdowns during the 2013 season, including 759 yards. Sure, he only averaged 4.3 receptions per game, but Jimmy Graham has averaged 4.9 receptions per game during his career, including 5.3 receptions per game last season. Compare the money Graham received to what Clay received knowing Graham averaged one more reception per game, if Peter really wants to play that game. So is Jimmy Graham overpaid based on his receptions per game? Remember, Graham had Drew Brees throwing him the ball, while Clay had Ryan Tannehill. Tony Gonzalez only averaged 4.9 receptions per game for his career, so I really think Peter is barking up the wrong tree in trying to point out how Charles Clay won't live up to his contract.
Did Peter do any research before simply regurgitating that 4.1 receptions per game statistic? Clay is making a lot of money his first two seasons in Buffalo, but he's also a pretty good tight end when he's healthy. And 4.1 receptions per game would have put Clay as the tight end with the 7th most receptions in the NFL last year if he had played a full 16 games.
10. I think these are my non-football thoughts of the week:
c. Wisconsin over Iowa State for the national title. What a basketball savant!
Peter has a fetish for college basketball teams from the Midwest it seems.
e. Uggla will make $13 million from the Braves this year. Part of an old guaranteed contract. (As every veteran in the NFL vomits while thinking, Why not us?)
Trust me, Braves fans have been vomiting for four seasons now. This year will be the last year of vomit-inducing thoughts about Dan Uggla.
f. Great cross-country writing music: “Songs of Innocence,” the most recent effort by U2. “Song For Someone” is the hidden gem of the album.
There is nothing hidden about U2 and there is even less "hidden" about an album that was automatically downloaded on to millions of people's iPhones. Literally everyone with an iPhone got a chance to hear this song if they would like. That goes against the idea anything regarding "Songs of Innocence" is hidden.
h. Coffeenerdness: illy espresso is underrated. Very smooth and strong.
It's the "Song For Someone" of espressos.
k. My Ohio U. Bobcats were taken out of the NCAA women’s tournament by Arizona State on Saturday. A couple of familiar names on the Sun Devils: senior guard Promise Amukamara and junior guard Peace Amukamara. Sisters of Prince, of course.
l. Curious if the other three Amukamara sisters—Precious, Passionate and Princess—were at the game.
I'm curious if you can stop commenting on the names of Prince Amukamara's sisters as if they are so hilarious because they don't fit into your WASP-y view of what a person's name should be.
The Adieu Haiku
March Madness. Fun times.
NFL playoffs fun too.
But can’t match Madness.
Why? Why still have this haiku? You know what isn't underrated? Using a haiku in a football column. It's overrated. It's the U2 of gimmicks that are used in weekly football columns.
Peter King discussed Darrelle Revis signing with the New York Jets in last week's MMQB. Peter also included a travel note that someone else experienced, and it is always pleasant and fun to read about someone else's experiences third-hand, specifically when the reader doesn't know that person at all. Peter thinks this is one of the zaniest offseasons that he can recall, which if I recall correctly, is something he seems to say every NFL offseason. This week Peter talks with Roger Goodell, shocks us with the conclusion out of work NFL players may be out of work for a reason, and talks briefly about Chris Borland's decision to retire. The real gem is Peter's conversation with Roger Goodell where Goodell reveals absolutely nothing. Of course, since Goodell is ALWAYS open to speaking to the media (as he claimed at the Super Bowl) then I wouldn't expect Goodell to say anything new and an interview with Goodell isn't really a big deal. Right? I mean, Goodell is ALWAYS available to talk with the media, so anything Goodell would say to Peter King is just stuff the public has heard before. He's such an available guy.
Roger Goodell’s season from Hades is over, and don’t expect him to share many memories of the nightmare. I tried the other day, and got nowhere.
Roger Goodell on January 30, 2015.
"I'm available to the media almost every day of my job professionally."
So he became available, good for him. But he won't reveal anything to the media, you know, like he seems to expect Marshawn Lynch to reveal when meeting with the media because:
“When you’re in the NFL, you have an obligation, an obligation to the fans. It is part of your job, and there are things in all of our jobs that we have to do that we don’t necessarily want to do.”
Fortunately, Goodell is in a position where the rules he makes don't apply to him. What a country!
In a 75-minute interview with The MMQB in his Park Avenue office in New York, Goodell seemed at ease and not wounded by the raging torrent of criticism that hounded him from the time he made his decision last July to suspend Baltimore running back Ray Rice for two games for knocking his wife unconscious in a New Jersey elevator. If he is wounded—and how can he not be—he’s not saying.
Why would Roger Goodell be wounded by the criticism? To be wounded would be to assume that Goodell (a) cares what anyone thinks about him or (b) is self-aware enough to understand that his decisions aren't sent down by tablet from God himself and that he very well could be fallible. Goodell hasn't shown that either assumption can be seen as a true characteristic he possesses.
Asked what his hopes are for 2015, Goodell said: “To some extent it’s that the things that we’re doing are working.
But Goodell is savvy enough to know there’s been damage to the league office, and a lot of it, and he’s going to have to have a damn good 2015 to restore faith in the league—and in him. “We have to meet the expectation of our fans,’’ he said. “They deserve it. We have to show them that their faith and trust in us is well placed.”
Ah yes, the use of "us" and "we" when it's Roger Goodell that many fans lack faith in and he is the one who needs to meet the expectations of the fans. Goodell accepts that salary to be the commissioner, but when things go wrong and the perception of his decisions isn't good, all of a sudden it's a team effort to fix them.
I’m going to run an edited transcript of Goodell’s remarks to me on Page 2 of the column. But first, a Cliff’s Notes version of the notable things from our conversation:
Goodell is available almost every day to the media, so I'm sure this is all stuff we've heard before.
On whether he ever considered resigning last year: “No. N-O. No.”
Because Goodell would voluntarily give up earning multi-millions and in the process thereby subjugating his ego and admitting he was wrong. Where's the fun in that?
Goodell said he thinks league-hired investigator Ted Wells “is getting near the end” of his probe into the inflation levels of footballs in the AFC Championship Game, a story that’s hung over the Patriots and the league for the past nine weeks.
No really, have him take his time. At this point, few people probably care what Wells finds out and that's probably Goodell's intent anyway.
One storyline during the deflated-balls saga was that the league was trying to catch the Patriots in the act of using the balls, and suspected prior to the AFC title game that the team was taking air out of the footballs before using them in games. Countered Goodell: “I was not personally aware of it until after the game.”
Based on the past year's worth of information about what Goodell claims to know and not know, it seems like Goodell really isn't informed about what's going on in the NFL. It could cause a more jaded person to wonder if Goodell is really that clueless about ongoing NFL investigations and whether a better commissioner would make himself more aware and thereby more accountable. But hey, Goodell can't be accountable if he doesn't possess the required information to be accountable, right?
The NFL is “looking at more games” in 2016 in Europe than the three scheduled in 2015, he said.
Of course the NFL is looking at more games in Europe. Because by golly, if those damn Europeans don't like American football then they'll be forced to like the sport, all in the name of "expansion" and increased profits for the NFL. Sure, NFL ticket holders will lose a few home games, but that's just a small price to pay for the NFL making as much money as possible. It's all in the best interests of the fans...of course.
Goodell said he’s “not concerned” with Jameis Winston, the possible first pick in the draft, staying home in Alabama with his family on draft night instead of being at the draft.
Oh good, so Winston has permission from Roger Goodell to be with his family on draft night. I'm sure Winston will sleep better knowing he has Roger's full go-ahead to spend the draft with his family.
The MMQB: What’s the lesson you take from easily your most trying year as commissioner?
Goodell: I don’t know if you could put one or two … One of the things we always focus on is,
Uh-oh, things are going wrong so here comes the use of "we" because the team is wrong, it's not just Roger Goodell who is wrong. Writers like Bill Simmons use "we" when he's wrong, but it's good to see a person like Roger Goodell buy into the team atmosphere in order to shirk responsibility from himself on to "the team" when decisions made by the NFL are wrong as well. Nothing makes a person buy into "we" and the team concept like a wrong or bad decision having been made. I wonder if "we" all have their name on Roger's paycheck?
By the way, Roger's answer contains 10 "we's" and 1 "we're."
Two, in this case, at least in the personal conduct area, we were too reliant on law enforcement. We were completely reliant on law enforcement. We can’t be in this circumstance, because our criminal justice system has to make different types of decisions on different standards. We have to have personal conduct that represents the standards in the NFL.
The NFL did have a personal conduct that represents the standards in the NFL. It's just the public thought these standards were too low, so Roger Goodell had to scramble during the Ray Rice situation in order to pretend the NFL really had higher standards, and he just didn't have enough information to make an informed decision prior to making a decision.
The MMQB: What would you say in 2014 was your low point?
Goodell: I don’t know. I wouldn’t. I haven’t even thought about that.
As I said previously, this would require self-awareness, as well as some sense of reflection. There's no need for Roger Goodell to engage in either tactic because that would be admitting he perhaps he's made a mistake that requires self-awareness or reflection to correct and he isn't willing to do that.
The MMQB: You had a few of them.
Goodell: I just said, I haven’t thought about that.
Hey, let's not get snippy there buddy. I know you have given this information out many times before because you are SO available to the media, but try to have patience when Peter is asking a semi-tough question (which is generally against his nature).
I think when you’re doing this job, you’ve got to do this job and you take highs and lows and you work to address them as quickly as possible and as thoroughly as possible.
So Peter said it had been nine weeks since Ted Wells started looking into the improperly inflated footballs that the Patriots may or may not have been using?
The MMQB: How difficult was it personally on you?
Goodell: We’re sorry we got to the place we got to [and] the way we got to it, but that is something that we now can look back at and build on. … We’re actually starting to see it. People are saying, “People should adopt the personal conduct policy of the NFL in other institutions and other industries.” That’s rewarding to some extent.
I've heard no one say this when this statement wasn't then followed by laughter, as it is clearly a joke designed to poke fun at the NFL.
The MMQB: Did you use anybody in 2014 as what you would call a sounding board, an advisor, to help you through the tough times?
Goodell: … Well, one of the good things about having those is that you don’t tell people who they are, because then they aren’t quite as open … I think that’s how you develop relationships that are valuable.
It was Tony Dungy, wasn't it?
I don't know if Peter is salty because he is bitter for the whole report he screwed up this summer about Ray Rice and the conversation that went on between Rice, Janay Rice and Roger Goodell, but he does ask Goodell tougher questions when he feels Goodell is saying nothing. Goodell says nothing often.
The MMQB: Speaking of investigations, we’re at the two-month anniversary of the AFC Championship Game and the investigation into allegations that the Patriots deflated the football or footballs in that game. How much thought did you give that you needed to get it resolved so it’s not hanging over the league? It seems like it’s been hanging over the league for two months. Was there any thought in your mind to try to get it resolved that week so that it didn’t mar anything associated with the Super Bowl?
Goodell: No. I think the most important thing is to get the right information, to get the facts and to get the truth. And not to make any judgments until you get that. We have been very careful on that.
The MMQB: Any indication when that will be?
Goodell: I haven’t spoken to him for several weeks. I think he’s getting near the end, but there’s no requirement when. …
So there's no requirement when Ted Wells has to actually give the report to the NFL? That's great because it creates an environment of accountability in that the commissioner doesn't seem to have a clue what's going on and he doesn't care when he gets clued in. What Goodell isn't told yet can't hurt him, right?
The MMQB: Is two months to investigate that too long?
Goodell: Again, I think that if you’re going to be thorough, it takes time. You’re having to meet with a lot of people. I guess it’s always too long, because you want to get to that issue and deal with it. It’s important not to exert any pressure to short-circuit or do anything other than be fair and transparent.
Yes, be transparent. It's very important. Did Roger Goodell say this as he destroyed Spygate tapes or was he closing his eyes pretending he didn't see the Ray Rice tape when he spoke about transparency?
The MMQB: Can you say that the first time that you heard about this was after the game?
Goodell: Yes.
Goodell can say it. Who knows if it's the truth?
The MMQB: You know that there’s a storyline out there that you knew about the deflating and wanted to catch them in the act.
Goodell: Let’s just short circuit this a little bit. I’m not going to get into what we knew and when we knew it because that’s part of what he’s investigating. … I can tell you that I was not personally aware of it until after the game.
You know, for a powerful man Roger Goodell sure doesn't know a hell of a lot of things the commissioner of the NFL should know before they happen.
What's interesting is that Goodell will talk about how he has no knowledge of an event that is seen as a negative for the NFL, but he's quick to point out how he's very proactive and full of information in situations where it makes him look good. In situations where the NFL doesn't look so good, Goodell is kept in the dark.
The MMQB: Do you get involved much with things like that with the competition committee?
Goodell: I just spent 45 minutes on the phone with [competition committee co-chair] Jeff Fisher last night. I talk with Rich McKay or other committee members, John Mara. … I’m meeting with them in advance of Sunday.
Roger Goodell is going to meet with the competition committee IN ADVANCE of their meeting to ensure they can talk about what is and what is not a catch. Roger Goodell is dedicated to making sure everyone knows what is and is not a catch. Did the Patriots deflate footballs and affect the fair competition of the game? Fuck if he knows. He's just waiting for someone to give him some information about that subject.
The MMQB: Is it logical to think that you would propose an 18-game schedule at any point in the near future?
Goodell: I think it’s one of those things that we’ll continue to evaluate the season structure. … The real short-term focus is on the quality of the preseason. Do we need four preseason games anymore—for competitive reasons or any other reason? And I think that there’s a growing sentiment that you don’t.
It's not a growing sentiment at this point. That sentiment has already grown up, is about to graduate college and is looking for a full-time job.
But can you get this done and can you do it in two or three games? I think that people are more comfortable with three. So do we need that? Okay, that’s one part of the schedule. The rest is the regular season and the rest is the postseason. So I think all of these are interrelated. You have to evaluate all of them. We haven’t spent a lot of time on 18 games in the last couple of years.
It's interesting how much information and research Goodell puts into ideas like the 18 game schedule and what is a catch, while Peter gets short answers as it pertains to questions about deflated footballs and any mistakes the NFL has made.
The MMQB: Is there one city that is really aggressive about having it?
(The NFL Draft is the topic here)
Goodell: Canton, Ohio. It’s awesome!
It sounds awesome! I think Roger Goodell is moving the draft around just in the hopes that citizens of each city will be so happy to have the draft that they forget to boo him. It's probably also his reason for trying to expand the NFL into London and other European cities. They don't hate them there...yet.
The MMQB: What leads you to believe that 2015 is going to be a better year for the NFL?
Goodell: Well, I think the first part is that we implemented a personal conduct policy in December which we think is responsive to addressing very complex issues where we acknowledged that our policy didn’t deal with those things [domestic violence issues] effectively. We brought in expertise to help us make those decisions going forward. I think there’s clarity to those issues.
Okay, maybe Goodell just says "we" a lot.
It was a competitive year that ended with the most-watched show in the history of television. So fans engaged with our game at an incredibly high level last year. We have to continue to focus on the game of football while making sure that we’re doing the right things off the field—and I’m confident that we will.
Of course Goodell is confident the NFL will do the right things on and off the field. He doesn't even admit to thinking about what the low point of the past season was for him, so like any person who lacks the ability to reflect on his mistakes or admit these mistakes, he lacks a certain perspective.
Not much to report from the first NFL veterans combine.
Takeaways from the inaugural event at the Cardinals’ practice facility in Tempe, where 105 players worked out on Sunday, picked from among 1,800 to 2,000 applicants (according to the league) for workout slots:
The biggest takeaway should be that many of these players aren't signed by an NFL team for a reason. Not playing in the NFL hasn't sharpened their skills either.
2. “There may be a few back-end-of-the-roster training-camp players,” said one GM on hand, “but that’s it.”
It's good the NFL decided to do a veteran's combine and give these guys a chance to prove they can make it in the NFL though. It's not like these veterans had to PAY to work out for NFL tea----
3. Players had to pay a fee to work out for NFL teams.
Wait, what? These players had to pay to work out for NFL teams? They had to pay real money, not fake Monopoly money? I can't believe this is a real thing that happened. Of course, the NFL does a few things well and one of those things is make money, so I shouldn't be surprised.
There’s something tawdry about that in the first place, for a multibillion-dollar enterprise such as the NFL. If the “prospects” were truly prospects, why are they paying to be seen? If it’s programming for NFL Network, or just another slow-day news story for the league to drag out (some 40 media members covered the show on Sunday), then the veterans combine is not being done for the right reason—the right reason being the league is looking for prospects. Visitors to the event walked away with one overriding thought: That was sad.
It would have been nice if Peter had this information prior to interviewing Roger Goodell so he could ask, "Why in the hell do you make veteran football players pay to try out for NFL teams? You can't use 'money' as an answer either."
I'm not sure what is more sad. The veterans who tried out and didn't look too good or the fact they had to pay to try out.
With the surprising news last week that 24-year-old Niners linebacker Chris Borland was retiring, fearful of what football could do to his long-term health, I think it’s premature to forecast the death of football. But there’s no question the Borland news is a caution flag for the league. To me, the big question is how Borland quitting at his peak and at such a young age will affect the future of the game. There have to be more parents out there questioning whether to let their sons ever play football now.
While I understand why parents wouldn't let their children play football, why would the retirement of Chris Borland affect this decision? I get Borland's retirement is a high profile rejection of a continued NFL career, but it's not like parents now have more information about how dangerous the NFL is prior to Borland's retirement. The sport is dangerous and whether Borland retired or not didn't change that. Sure, he's an example of a football player who doesn't think the sport is worth the long-term damage caused to him, but there are thousands of other football players who choose to play football regardless of the impact on their body. Shouldn't these players also have a large impact on high school players and their decision to play football?
On Friday, I spoke with the coach of the best high school football team in the Bay Area, De La Salle High’s Justin Alumbaugh, to ask him about how his players, and the parents of his players, were reacting to the stunning news about the bright 49er prospect.
“One of our best players was heartbroken about it,” said Alumbaugh. “He seemed sad all day when it happened.”
I would bet this player's sadness stemmed from the fact an emerging young player from his favorite team retired more than it stemmed from his feelings on how dangerous the sport of football is. Borland was on track to be a really good player and fans of his or the 49ers were probably unhappy with his decision to retire.
Alumbaugh has not see a decline in participation numbers at De La Salle. Then again, it’s not likely that one of the great football schools would see kids quit, or new kids not come out for the team.
Nor will there necessarily be a decline in participation on shitty high school teams either, at least not for the next few years. It was one player's decision, and I think it will take more than one retirement to reduce the participation numbers among high school kids, no matter how good the football school is.
I say this with confidence: There is no football player of a certain age who dictated the future ethos of his franchise, who put a lifetime imprint on a franchise and a city, the way Chuck Bednarik did with the Eagles and the city of Philadelphia.
The play that will live in the hearts of so many Eagles fans—including the thousands not alive to see it when it happened—occurred on Nov. 20, 1960, when the Eagles led the Giants late in the fourth quarter, trying to hang on to a 17-10 lead and secure their place atop the Eastern Division of the NFL.
The Giants were driving, and New York hero Frank Gifford, the Jeter of his day in the big city, caught a pass and headed upfield. Bednarik ran at Gifford and exploded into him chest-first, Gifford falling to the cold turf just as cold as the ground. Then, Bednarik stood over Gifford, and in a rage that would have cost his team 15 yards today, gesticulated at Gifford and screamed something like, “This game is OVER!”
Fast-forward to 15 years ago. I was in Andy Reid’s head-coaching office with the Eagles, and there was a huge rectangular photo on the wall—the shot of Bednarik exulting over the prone and motionless Gifford. Bednarik signed it for Reid.
“This game is f—— over! Chuck Bednarik, HOF 1967’’
And yes, in today's NFL Bednarik would have been suspended a game for his taunting of a fallen player and Skip Bayless would spit out hot takes about what a thug Bednarik is while everyone else agrees there is no place in the game for knocking a player out and then screaming over his body while he lays prone on the ground. But hey, it all turned out well and Bednarik is a hero instead. Let a modern player do this and the hot takes about his thuggery will fly though.
“For the most part, I thought it was a mediocre free-agent class. I think a lot of guys got paid more money than maybe they would have … because there was a lot of cap room.”
—Giants president and co-owner John Mara.
For those who missed it this week, I wrote a companion piece of anecdotal evidence on the over-rating of free agency.
But as I have written a few times during this offseason, the fact Peter considers free agency to be overrated doesn't mean he won't saturate MMQB and his THE MMQB site with coverage of free agency. People like reading about free agency, even if it is overrated. Also, Peter likes making judgments about teams based on overrated free agency.
“Do you know what happened the last time a Ravens player got a DUI? I’m getting cut tomorrow, not like you care.”
—Running back Bernard Pierce, to the officer who arrested him on a charge of driving while intoxicated on Wednesday. He was right. Pierce was cut later in the day, and picked up by the Jaguars.
Times change quickly in the NFL. Two years and one month ago, the key Baltimore backs in the Super Bowl were Ray Rice and Bernard Pierce.
An NFL player can get a DUI and then immediately find another job. What a country!
Mr. Starwood Preferred Member Travel Note of the Week
Three thoughts about my spring training visit to the Cubs’ new stadium, Sloan Park, in Mesa, Ariz.:
2. Saw a most prodigious home run by Kris Bryant, the star of spring training. He golfed a moon shot deep to left field in the first inning against the Mariners. Off King Felix. Which prompted a fan behind home plate to turn to the press box, presumably where the fan thought GM Theo Epstein would be sitting, and screamed: “Hey Theo! YOU’RE NOT SENDING THIS KID DOWN!” The Cubs can get an extra pre-free-agency year out of Bryant if he starts the season in the minors, which seems patently absurd.
It also seems like this is the result of the CBA the player's union worked out with the owners. Them's the rules, so Bryant spending another couple months in the minors is as absurd as an NFL team signing a player to a $110 million contract and that player only seeing a fraction of that money.
Then Bryant hit a second homer. Don’t want to be a relentless optimist about the Cubbies,
Which means that Peter will now be optimistic about the Cubbies.
but that teams has some great young bats. Addison Russell, the shortstop acquired in the Jeff Samardzija trade with Oakland last year, also homered.
And you know Peter had no idea who Addison Russell was before attending this spring training game and watching him homer.
3. At so many baseball games—I really noticed it here—it’s like the ticket is a cover charge for the bars around the park.
I'm sure the "baseball is dying" crowd thinks the fans need alcohol in order to make it through the boring baseball game.
Note to all NFL players. Think ahead 10 years
— Adrian Wilson (@adrian_wilson24) March 17, 2015
This is good advice. It's also advice coming from an NFL player who played 14 seasons in the NFL and earned millions of dollars who is advising NFL players to think ahead 10 years. Wilson didn't didn't think ahead 10 years, so I could look at it as him giving advice he wished he had taken or I could look at this as advice from a player who already earned his millions playing football. It's easier to give this advice knowing you didn't make the decision you are imploring others to make. Perhaps Wilson regrets his decision to keep playing...
Ten Things I Think I Think
1. I think the best things that will be considered by the 32 team owners this week are:
a. Chicago’s proposal that both teams be guaranteed at least one possession in overtime. (A turnover on the opening kickoff of overtime would count as a possession.)
I don't see why this proposal wasn't implemented a few years ago. I see no reason why each team isn't guaranteed a possession, but the team that gets possession second has to go for a two point conversion if they score a touchdown. That way, there is more strategy involved in winning the coin flip and each team doesn't get multiple possessions in overtime. If the first team that scores goes for a two point conversion, converts, and the second team does the same (which wouldn't happen that often) then both teams have to go for the two point conversion in the second overtime. I like it when both teams get the football in overtime. That's my basic point.
c. Moving the extra point back to the 15-yard line. (At least.)
d. Narrowing the goal posts.
e. Making the line of scrimmage for the extra point or two-point conversion the one-yard line.
Obviously "c" and "e" can't both happen, but I don't like the idea of making the line of scrimmage as the one-yard line. I don't know if this will achieve the intended effect of having teams go for the two-point conversion more often. Also, moving the extra point back to the 15-yard line essentially takes the two-point conversion out of play, unless the NFL wants a rule which says if a team is going for two then they get the ball on the 2-yard line and if a team is trying an extra point then they have to try it from the 15-yard line. That seems dumb to me.
f. Though I supported the Patriots’ right to put a fifth “lineman” reporting as eligible to play anywhere on the field when it was used in the playoffs in January, I think a clearer rule is preferable. “We’re proposing that if an eligible player reports ineligible to the referee, that he must report and then play in a line in the tackle box,” said competition committee co-chair Jeff Fisher. “There was a concern on behalf of a number of clubs and number of coaches and coach [John] Madden’s subcommittee that unless we had some guidelines in place, that this thing may get out of hand.” So, a running back wouldn’t be able to play split wide, ineligible. But a tight end would be able to line up as left tackle.
THE NFL CHANGES THE RULES AFTER THE PATRIOTS WIN THE SUPER BOWL! IT'S ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF HOW THE PATRIOTS CHEAT IN ORDER TO WIN A TAINTED SUPER BOWL TITLE!
2. I think for those of your cursing me for loving the both-teams-get-a-possession proposal, my thought: The coin flip at the start of overtime still takes on too much significance, even with the receiving team needing a touchdown to win the game instead of simply a field goal. I agree that having to score a touchdown on the first possession of overtime for the game to be over is progress, but it’s still a fact that the vast majority of teams with a choice at the start of overtime are going to choose to receive, not kick off. That’s because having the ball, regardless how good the defense you’re facing, gives a team a better chance to win than playing defense. And the games are too important to give a coin flip such influence. The Packers lost the coin flip of the NFC title game and never saw the ball. I’d make the argument that the odds of Green Bay scoring a touchdown on the first possession of overtime with Aaron Rodgers quarterbacking were more than 50 percent.
True, but I would counter this 50 percent guess by pointing out the Packers did have the football late in the fourth quarter with a chance to score a touchdown and they only came away with a field goal. So I think the 50 percent guess by Peter is simply a guess. I agree with him overall, and I hate how the coin flip is so important too, but he's purely guessing that Rodgers and the Packers would have scored a touchdown on the first possession of overtime. Their fourth quarter offensive performance calls this 50% guess into question.
Remember’s Seattle’s other marquee overtime game last year? Won the coin flip against Denver, went 80 yards on the first possession for the touchdown. Pretty significant factor, the coin flip. Kept the ball out of Aaron Rodgers’ and Peyton Manning’s hands in those two games.
I think Peter really supports this rule change because his boy Peyton Manning was screwed out of a victory by losing the coin flip against Seattle this year and in a playoff game against the Chargers several years ago too. He's still sore about that playoff game against the Chargers I bet.
4. I think the way the Chargers will handle things with Rivers is smart. They’re not going to put any full-court press on him to sign this offseason—though they very much want to sign him to be a Charger for life, wherever the franchise plays long-term. But the club also knows there’s no sense in pressuring Rivers, so they’ve left the ball in his court, basically. He knows they want to talk extension, and if he changes his mind, they’ll let him come to them.
Which is a great strategy until the Chargers realize they can't afford to slap him with the franchise tag and Rivers doesn't come to the Chargers for a new contract so he becomes a free agent and chooses to sign somewhere else. I'm sure some NFL team would pay Philip Rivers if the Chargers just sit back and wait for Rivers to ask for a contract extension.
6. I think the fair thing for Greg Hardy and the Cowboys would be a six-game suspension to start the season. I have no problem with the Cowboys signing him, but his case should be a perfect example of the way the league deals with cases of domestic violence where there is significant evidence that abuse occurs. Even though Hardy sat 15 games last year, he was paid for them, and though I realize that’s a very gray area, imagine if Hardy isn’t suspended. That would mean he’d never missed a paycheck while being found guilty by a North Carolina judge for domestic violence. (The case was never heard by a jury because the victim did not show up for the subsequent trial.)
Hardy was found guilty, but it wasn't the exact same thing as a guilty verdict in this situation. It's a bizarre North Carolina law, but Hardy was never found guilty by a jury of his peers that heard the evidence of the case. I don't care and haven't cared how long Hardy will be suspended, but he was found guilty in a bench trial and his trial by jury never occurred. It's a weird situation.
7. I think the coolest part of the design for the prospective new Inglewood, Calif., stadium planned by Rams owner Stan Kroenke is the roof. According to the Los Angeles Times’ Sam Farmer, the roof will be 275 feet above the field, and it will be transparent, and it will allow breezes to flow through the stadium. It doesn’t sound like Kroenke wants a second team to share the site with him (though, as Farmer reports, the design does allow for it), and it certainly doesn’t sound like he wants to keep the Rams in St. Louis.
Poor Rams fans. I feel for them. They are stuck with Jeff Fisher and now the team will get serious about winning just as they are leaving town.
9. I think this could well surpass the $7 million guaranteed to Dwayne Harris (Who?) by the New York Giants on the Teams Do The Damndest Things In Free Agency Dept.: Charles Clay will make $24.2 million in his first two seasons playing tight end for the Buffalo Bills. Not bad for a guy with three touchdowns in Miami last year—and who averaged 4.1 receptions a game.
Wow, Peter is really using information from Clay's injury-filled 2014 season. Clay was injured pretty much the entire 2014 season. He had six touchdowns during the 2013 season, including 759 yards. Sure, he only averaged 4.3 receptions per game, but Jimmy Graham has averaged 4.9 receptions per game during his career, including 5.3 receptions per game last season. Compare the money Graham received to what Clay received knowing Graham averaged one more reception per game, if Peter really wants to play that game. So is Jimmy Graham overpaid based on his receptions per game? Remember, Graham had Drew Brees throwing him the ball, while Clay had Ryan Tannehill. Tony Gonzalez only averaged 4.9 receptions per game for his career, so I really think Peter is barking up the wrong tree in trying to point out how Charles Clay won't live up to his contract.
Did Peter do any research before simply regurgitating that 4.1 receptions per game statistic? Clay is making a lot of money his first two seasons in Buffalo, but he's also a pretty good tight end when he's healthy. And 4.1 receptions per game would have put Clay as the tight end with the 7th most receptions in the NFL last year if he had played a full 16 games.
10. I think these are my non-football thoughts of the week:
c. Wisconsin over Iowa State for the national title. What a basketball savant!
Peter has a fetish for college basketball teams from the Midwest it seems.
e. Uggla will make $13 million from the Braves this year. Part of an old guaranteed contract. (As every veteran in the NFL vomits while thinking, Why not us?)
Trust me, Braves fans have been vomiting for four seasons now. This year will be the last year of vomit-inducing thoughts about Dan Uggla.
f. Great cross-country writing music: “Songs of Innocence,” the most recent effort by U2. “Song For Someone” is the hidden gem of the album.
There is nothing hidden about U2 and there is even less "hidden" about an album that was automatically downloaded on to millions of people's iPhones. Literally everyone with an iPhone got a chance to hear this song if they would like. That goes against the idea anything regarding "Songs of Innocence" is hidden.
h. Coffeenerdness: illy espresso is underrated. Very smooth and strong.
It's the "Song For Someone" of espressos.
k. My Ohio U. Bobcats were taken out of the NCAA women’s tournament by Arizona State on Saturday. A couple of familiar names on the Sun Devils: senior guard Promise Amukamara and junior guard Peace Amukamara. Sisters of Prince, of course.
l. Curious if the other three Amukamara sisters—Precious, Passionate and Princess—were at the game.
I'm curious if you can stop commenting on the names of Prince Amukamara's sisters as if they are so hilarious because they don't fit into your WASP-y view of what a person's name should be.
The Adieu Haiku
March Madness. Fun times.
NFL playoffs fun too.
But can’t match Madness.
Why? Why still have this haiku? You know what isn't underrated? Using a haiku in a football column. It's overrated. It's the U2 of gimmicks that are used in weekly football columns.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)