6 comments Rick Reilly Lets Others Ask the Tough Questions about Chris Davis, Won't Answer the Tough Questions Himself

I was going to write about Rick Reilly's column on Chris Davis when BotB reader Haris contacted me over Twitter (You can follow him on Twitter @kingharis) saying he had a guest post about the Reilly column he would like to write. I liked the way he turned the tables on Reilly so I agreed it was a good idea and here is what Haris wrote.

First, thanks to Bengoodfella for letting me vent here. I know the dynamic of denouncing those who denounce power hitters as PED users with no evidence is getting a little played out in the blogosphere, but it's a battle worth fighting. (Not like, world hunger or anything, but still.)

Rick Reilly, frequently (rightfully) lambasted in these pages as the colossal asshat that he is, recently wrote a column about Chris Davis. Reilly, on the basis of things done by other people when Chris Davis was a child, outright accuses Davis of cheating and using PEDs, and concedes that no evidence will ever convince him otherwise. There's no need for me to dissect this column in detail - Mike Bates at SBNation does an excellent job, including the question why none of these writers showed their moral indignation while the steroid era was in progress - but I do want to take this opportunity to call attention to Reilly's attitude. It's an attitude he shares with many sportswriters who, unfortunately, have a built-in audience of millions and propagate this crap whenever they can, making the lives of informed sports fans just a little worse than they need to be. (Basically, Reilly feels good about himself when he writes this crap. He shouldn't.)


Reilly's column was prompted by the following Twitter exchange between Davis and a young fan:




Reilly, to whom it never occurred to ask this question himself, follows up with Davis:

RR: You said you weren't on steroids, but have you ever done any performance-enhancing drug, period?

CD: I have not ever taken any PEDs. I'm not sure fans realize, we have the strictest drug testing in all of sports, even more than the Olympics. If anybody was going to try to cheat in our game, they couldn't. It's impossible to try to beat the system. Anyway, I've never taken PEDs, no. I wouldn't. Half the stuff on the list I can't even pronounce.

RR: Which is a great answer. And carries less power with me than a mosquito's burp. ... That's not fair to Chris Davis -- who can prove a negative? -- but it's what baseball deserves.

That's the maddening attitude sportswriters like Reilly bring to the table: "I was an idiot for two decades and now I feel stupid for not noticing steroids, so I'm going to take it out on defenseless innocents who do the same things that those who fooled me did." I wonder if Reilly would mind if the tables were turned...

If you recall, Philadelphia sportswriter Bill Conlin, also by all accounts a colossal asshat, was accused of child molestation and resigned in disgrace. This prompted me to ask Rick Reilly:




Unlike Davis, Reilly hasn't even bothered to reply. By his own logic, this means that Reilly is more likely to be a pedophile than Davis is to be a PED user - he can't even be bothered to deny the accusation! Of course, even if he denies it, it means nothing. We won't be convinced otherwise unless he can prove he's not a pedophile. That's not fair to Rick Reilly - who can prove a negative? - but it's what bad sportswriting deserves.

Hey, Kim Kardashian, is that really your baby?

Hey, Rick Reilly, is it true that you killed Trayvon Martin?

It's Bengoodfella here again. Thanks to Haris for writing this. Two points I wanted to make in addition to what Haris wrote. 

1. It's not like Davis has not shown previous to this year he could hit home runs. He hit 33 home runs last year. In AA at 21-22 years of age he hit 25 home runs in 301 (which is the same pace he is hitting home runs this season) and he hit 54 home runs in 867 at-bats in AAA from the ages of 22-25. He hasn't hit home runs quite at his current pace but he is getting regular playing time and he is 27 years old (in the prime of his career). I'm not naive, Davis could be using steroids, but it's not like he hasn't been a home run hitter prior to this season.

2. Let's not forget that Roger Maris never hit more than 39 home runs in a season and then in 1961 he hit 61 home runs. Maris only surpassed 30 home runs in a season three times during his career and he hit 61 in a single season. If he did this in 2013 then he would be treated the same way Chris Davis is being treated by Rick Reilly. So the "real" single-season home run king seems kind of fishy to put up 61 home runs in a season if you take the time to look at his career numbers. Davis could be having a season like Roger Maris had where all went right for him. Maris went from hitting 39 home runs in a single season to hitting 61 home runs in a single season, then never surpassing 33 home runs in a season from that point on. Know that if Chris Davis is a cheat then Roger Maris could be considered a cheat too using the same logic used by Rick Reilly to convict Davis without evidence.

3 comments MMQB Review: Jabari Greer Tells an Inspiring Story, But Doesn't Understand the Story of David and Goliath

Chris Kluwe wrote MMQB last week and regaled us all with stories of what it is like to be an NFL player who gets released, encouraged us all to take a cross-country trip at some point so that we may have the perspective on the world he now has, and described the changes he would make in the Pro Football Hall of Fame voting process to allow a specific spot for a specialist like a punter or kicker. I'm not entirely sure putting aside a certain spot where Hall of Fame voters can vote in a kicker or punter separate from offensive/defensive players would result in more specialists being elected into the Hall of Fame. It still comes down to voters believing a kicker or punter is as worthy as an offensive/defensive player for the Hall of Fame honor. This week in MMQB, Jabari Greer desperately tries to get an "A" in creative writing by telling an allegorical tale, as well as informs us about the state of mind in the New Orleans Saints locker room after being wrongfully persecuted for the bounty scandal. When Greer starts telling a story about two seeds it starts to make me miss Peter King a little bit.

Each summer in the searing sun of southern Louisiana, 90 men leave their individual life behind and dream of becoming one.

So the Saints are going to use 90 players on defense this year to try and stop the opposing team from accumulating over 6000 yards of offense on them? I'm not sure the NFL will allow this, but the Saints haven't ever really cared about the rules anyway, so why stop now?

The goal is simple:

Find someone, anyone, who can tackle the opposing team's ball carrier. I'm just kidding of course. The goal is to injure the quarterback for the opposing team using money as an incentive and then act like they are wrongfully being persecuted when they are caught doing this. But Drew Brees knows NOTHING about this I tell you. NOTHING! It's news to him.

forsake yourself for the fortune of group,

Incur a penalty for roughing the passer, but make sure the opposing team's quarterback is out of the game. That's all that matters. Forsake yourself, but get Brett Favre out of the NFC Championship Game.

rise above the immediate trials of the time, and become timeless. 

Which is what the Saints defense was able to do last season. They became timeless and historical. They gave up the most yards in a single season in NFL history. Hey, it's hard to play defense when you don't have a few hundred bucks motivating you to injure opposing players. Tackling gets boring and old, but the 2012 Saints team WAS timeless. So mission accomplished.

The summer progresses, the heat intensifies and the number of men sacrificing together dwindle;

Players start dwindling? You can't turn on yourselves like that! Just because you can't intentionally injure opposing players doesn't mean you should cannibalize your own team by injuring your teammates. Stop the madness.

This is the life of a New Orleans Saint preparing for the season, and if you are one of the 53 few chosen, this is the place you want to be.

Especially if you are an offensive player and the Saints are the next team on your schedule.

Coming into this season, like every season before, there is a sense of promise.

I have no promise for my favorite team. I know they will go 8-8 and I'm fine with that. I just miss football.

If you take a poll of all 32 teams, 32 of them will believe that there is something different about this year's chances; the offseason breeds hope, but only when hope is challenged, does resolve flourish.

What the hell are you talking about? Only when hope is challenged, does resolve flourish? Does Jabari Greer write taglines for bad science-fiction movies? I feel like this is the tagline for "Starship Troopers 7." Resolve can flourish even when hope isn't challenged. I think some people like to put a bunch of words together that sound deep, but they don't entirely think about what they are saying or writing and whether what they are saying or writing makes complete sense.

The 2012 New Orleans Saints season was well documented, from the loss of Sean Payton, our coach; to the rest of the sanctions dealt to our program in the alleged bounty case;

The NFL found the Saints guilty of placing bounties on opposing players and all of the actors have already been punished. There's nothing "alleged" about it at this point. It's thought to have happened and those responsible have been punished. The bounty case is no more "alleged" at this point than Bernie Madoff was alleged to have run a Ponzi Scheme. If you don't agree with the bounty decision just say "in the bounty case," but there's nothing "alleged" about now. It happened and it isn't alleged by those who have the authority to consider it fact, instead the Saints culpability in a bounty program is considered fact.

What was not told in the headlines or on the news, however, was the spirit of our men in the locker room. Experiencing an unprecedented ordeal in the history of the NFL, our men never wavered. Although our spirit wasn't reflected in the final score of nine of our games, we endured Goliath's wrath last season, and now Goliath has to pay.

Oh my God, what an attitude of victimization Jabari Greer has. Right, the Saints are David, not Goliath. The Saints, a team coming off a Super Bowl win in 2009 and has made the playoffs three out of the last four seasons are the underdog team who is trying to come back from Goliath's wrath. Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight...sounds like someone can't take responsibility for his actions. The team that intentionally tried to injure other NFL players and has recently won a Super Bowl, this team is the underdog David. The teams that amassed over 6000 yards on the Saints defense and were on the receiving end of the Saints bounty program, now those teams are the big bad Goliath who forced the Saints to endure their wrath. Of course. It doesn't sound like Jabari Greer has a victim mentality at all, does it? Oh, you were the wronged one Jabari Greer. How dare the other NFL teams abuse such a pitiful little helpless Saints defense last year by playing football and not just laying down late in the game so the Saints don't get their feelings hurt by how they can't stop the opposing team.

I understand athletes aren't the sharpest tools in the shed, but this bullshit victimization isn't even about intelligence. It's about willfully ignoring the actions of the Saints team and trying to make the Saints seem like victims. I'm not even talking about the bounty scandal, but I'm simply talking about all the times the Saints have run up the score on opposing teams to attain personal records. You know, how Sean Payton had Drew Brees continue to throw the football on Monday Night Football two years ago against the Falcons, after the game was in hand, so Brees could achieve a personal record on national television. Payton did this despite the fact the Saints had a home game the very next week and Brees could have broken this personal record at home then. But no, Sean Payton had to allow Brees to run up the score on the Falcons on national television and break the record. Then, the next week Payton kept Darren Sproles in the game long enough to break a record and continued to run up the score in that game against Carolina. I have no problems with teams running up the score, but I don't feel bad for the Saints and only the most dimwitted of idiots could even pretend the Saints haven't been an NFL Goliath over the past five years. What's good for the Saints to do is good for the Saints to have done to them. Sorry Jabari Greer, if there was a team that deserved to have 6000 yards of offense put on them it was the New Orleans Saints. They Saints have put up some big offensive numbers on opposing teams over the last five years. It's not like the Saints have ever tried to spare the feelings of others teams when putting up points. Stop the victimization bullshit and own up to what you are.

I can't stand it when someone acts like a victim and that person has no cause to act that way. The Saints are the Goliath much more than they can be considered David.

So forgive me if I sound the trumpet of preseason enthusiasm.

You sound like you don't have a ton of perspective on the situation. That's all.

This year holds no promise of a better timbre for the orchestra that is the Saints; but now, in our coach, we have our first chair back, and he has brought in a badass sax player in defensive coordinator Rob Ryan, some new songs and some new steps.

Rob Ryan the noted defensive fixer. He has fixed the defense for the...umm...well, one season with the Raiders in 2006 his defense did well. But his last name is "Ryan" that has to count for something doesn't it? Even some Saints fans appear to see Ryan's hire is based more on his name than his actual production as a defensive coordinator. That article was written before Ryan was hired by the Saints and the author's opinion seems pretty accurate. The Saints went after a "name" coordinator and Rob Ryan is excellent at talking and promising results that sometimes never come. Fortunately, the Saints still have a fantastic quarterback in Drew Brees. Hopefully he won't have to carry the team again this year.

although the goal is simple, and hope profuse, becoming timeless is going to take a lot of work.

I get the feeling Jabari Greer is trying to use big words. I'm sure he is a smart guy, but don't try to show off your vocabulary.
 
And now for a story ...

Is everyone ready for a parable? Good, you better be. I feel like Jabari Greer should just write in MMQB,

"Listen everyone, I'm really not the stereotype of a stupid athlete. I promise I'm not,"

as opposed to trying to use big words and using an allegorical story to convey a message he wants to send.

I'll wrap the story up pretty quick for you and I apologize for leaving out much of the imagery. I know most of you read MMQB to hear parables and life lessons so I apologize for skipping over most of it.

My friend and I cared deeply for our two seeds, and out of exhilaration decided to return home as champions.

As I entered the house, my father greeted me. I opened my hand slowly, revealing my seed, and at once my father's face beamed with joy. "My son, this is the Seed of Destiny," he said, "given as a gift by the Gardener to one chosen for the task." I was given precise instructions to wash it off and place it under my pillow. As I prepared for bed, after thanking the Gardener for this gift, I blew out my light. The luminescence from my seed filled my room, creating amazement in my mind and peace of purpose in my soul; I closed my eyes, and at once I was asleep.

The seed I loved, once smooth and manageable, over time had become jagged and course, almost unbearable to carry. Content with my effort, I put my seed down and walked away. My father, returning home to see my seed jagged and alone, summoned me to the table. "Son, although our destinies can sometimes become rough and seemingly unmanageable, we must strengthen our grip. Although painful at first, our hands callous and contour into a strong support, giving a firm foundation for something so special." He asked me to hold my hand out across the table, placed the jagged seed in my palm, and used his callous hands to close mine. Applying tremendous pressure to my grip, he assured me of my own strength; the excruciating pain drew blood from my hands, tears from my eyes, and a smile from my heart.

After many years passed, I returned to the land of my youth. Although I had left a young man, inexperienced, and oft naïve; I returned inspired, while once my seed was thought to be the solution to life's problems, it had become weathered, beaten and almost broken by the torrential winds of life. I had to become firmly rooted in the lessons I had learned, and truths I had found.

My seed continues to comfort me with a patience that only a few understand. I reminisce on my father's wisdom, not fully understood until now: "Son, our trees must be strong, with roots locking our foundation securely in love, and we must provide not only home for fowl but a place of respite to the weary. It is in your shade that your children will find their seeds, and they will climb your sturdy branches and tell you secrets in a time you will never visit. And when the wind blows ... we can tell them stories of a place they've never known."

So there's the story. See? Jabari Greer has proven he isn't the typical stupid, uneducated athlete. He still uses "alleged" when discussing the Saints bounty program, so maybe he is willfully stupid when it's convenient for him.

Although I use allegory in explaining the story of the two seeds, the principles I wanted to express in this Monday Morning Quarterback are in harmony with the task set before us this day. Monday is a day in which we start new, and we often compound the expectations and tasks facing us, even before realizing that our own seeds still scream to be cultivated.

Stop smoking pot, man. It's making you write and think funny.

We must be the shade to the oppressed, the Fatherless and the poor. We must be the encouraging catalyst to the young who come after us, seeds in hand and full of promise. With their seed, we must cup their hand and apply great force.

See, if someone said this all to me it would sound like they were asking for money. Is Jabari Greer asking for money? I ain't giving him no tree-fiddy.

For out a river of pain,
Their passions shall flow.
no one understands me.

I mean this in the nicest possible way without the snark I've used the rest of this post. This doesn't make sense to me. So "out of a river of pain, their passions shall flow" and then it ends with "no one understands me"? Is this a Fall Out Boy lyric or something? Perhaps I'm just not smart enough to understand, but I can't see how we go from "their passions shall flow" to "no one understands me."

Great, thanks Jabari Greer. Now I have "No One Understands" by Bayside in my head. Thanks, you have me singing emo songs. 

Ten Things I Think I Think

This is as opposed to the rest of this MMQB, which also consisted of Jabari Greer relaying what he thinks. 

1. I think that you guys will read the Two Seeds story, and get to the tagline of "no one understands me," and some of you will invariably reply, "I don't get it?"

The fact that some people may not get it doesn't mean there is anything to be gotten. It's not necessarily deep nor does it have more meaning because some people don't get it. In fact, it very well could mean the tagline of "no one understands me" is just pure gibberish. I could write a incoherent poem and then say "I bet no one gets this" and it doesn't mean my poem is too smart or meaningful for some people. There's a chance my poem just may not make sense.

2. I think that the nation's sidewalk-sign-twirlers should look into getting a union. I consider that a high risk, low reward gig. Nobody should tear a rotator cuff flipping a sign promoting ½ price off haircuts for kids*.

I know Greer is trying to be funny, but that's a little rude, no? Sidewalk-sign-twirlers do have a low reward gig, but I sort of feel like Greer is making fun of these people a little bit when talking about them tearing a rotator cuff flipping the sign. How about writing an allegorical story about not being a dick?

4. I think one of the most confusing comments I sometimes hear when I'm with my children in a restaurant is, "Oh, you're such a good daddy, I wish there were more like you."

Really? More what? More men who realized that they are too lazy to make pancakes on Saturday, so instead pay twice the market value to have someone else make them?

Or they could be talking about men who take the time to treat their children to breakfast out at a restaurant. Going out to a restaurant isn't about trying to have someone else make you food at below the market value at which you could make that food. Nobody goes out to eat to try and beat the market. Going out to eat is nice because you don't have to cook the food and usually the food tastes better than the food you cook. These people who say this wish there were more parents who took the time to treat their children out to a nice breakfast. Don't be so touchy.

Another comment I often hear is, "Your children are so well-behaved."

I wonder how Greer is going to be offended by people who try to give his family this compliment?

"Why wouldn't my kids be well-behaved? Just because I'm a pro athlete it means my children should be terrible and unruly in public?"

5. I think, when writing comedy, the best place to look for conflict is the waffle house during the morning rush. There should be a reality show called Hot off the Grill: Drama in the Waffle House.

Absolutely hilarious.

6. I think the worst place to rush to the restroom is at a Cracker Barrel. If you're trying to picture what it's like, think less NASCAR, more bumper cars.

For someone who doesn't like the idea of going out to eat and paying twice the market value for breakfast that someone else is making, it sure seems like Jabari Greer visits a hell of a lot of breakfast restaurants doesn't it? It seems he is one of those "do as I say, not as I do" type people. It's no big deal to go out to eat for breakfast, but don't get all indignant and pissy when someone says they wish there were more fathers like you who take their children out to eat for breakfast. It seems like Greer likes to take his family out to breakfast, because he has a lot of thoughts on the atmosphere at breakfast restaurants.

8. I think no matter how insightful, inspirational or moving my writing may be, I'll always hear it from Falcons fans:

"Loved the article, but I hope that Roddy White 'drops his seed' on ya'll Week 1! Rise Up!"

Trying not to be mean...but this column is supposed to be inspirational and moving? This is MMQB. I'm not trying to be motivated. I'm trying to talk about the NFL.

9. I think I have been truly blessed to know Steve Gleason.

Man, Peter King does like to have New Orleans Saints players and coaches guest write his MMQB doesn't he? He had Jabari Greer and Steve Gleason guest write this year and Sean Payton guest wrote MMQB a few years ago. It's good thing Peter has tried hard not to piss off the Saints organization, because otherwise he would have no one to guest write MMQB.

10. I think if you met me for coffee, the last thing you would think I did professionally was play football.

I would actually think the last thing you did was be a poet, but I would also be sure not to comment on you being a good father for taking your kids out to get breakfast and coffee. I wouldn't want you to jump down my throat and try to hurt me for being a good dad when we are both paying above market value for coffee and hash browns. Not that Jabari Greer would ever hurt anyone, but we "allegedly" know how those New Orleans Saints defenders can be when it comes to money. 

5 comments MMQB Review: Guest Writer Chris Kluwe Edition

Sorry, I couldn't think of a more exciting title for this MMQB. I could go with "Peter Invites Someone with a Klu(we) to Write MMQB," but that would turn me into Rick Reilly or something that is unimaginably worse than Rick Reilly, which at this point I am not aware actually exists. So I went with the boring title.

Peter King was on vacation last week and so he had Steve Gleason, formerly a player of the New Orleans Saints, write MMQB in his place. I will not make fun of someone suffering from ALS, so I figured I would let MMQB go for last week. Perhaps if Gleason had some King-like thoughts then I could have posted something, but he wrote about his disease and how it has affected him and his family. Even I'm not that much of an asshole. This week Peter has Chris Kluwe write MMQB while he is busy enjoying his vacation (Peter is enjoying the vacation, not Chris Kluwe...everyone knows an NFL punter gets no breaks). Kluwe serves a two-fold purpose in writing MMQB. First, Peter agrees with Kluwe on social issues and Peter likes Kluwe which has caused (in my opinion at least) Peter to take up Kluwe's cause in MMQB when it comes to finding a new NFL punting gig. Peter cherry-picked punting data in a previous MMQB to make Kluwe seem like he had a better year last year than he really did. Second, Kluwe is popular with "the kids" so it gives Peter some street cred that a super-cool guy who plays awesome socially acceptable games like Warcraft is guest-writing MMQB.

And no, I don't expect Kluwe to be as good of a writer as Peter King since Kluwe doesn't make a living writing about sports. The writing style Kluwe uses feels like some bizarre combination of Big Daddy Drew and Bill Simmons. I'm not even sure that is a thing, and yes, I realize I am critiquing Chris Kluwe's writing which is against the unspoken rules of the sportswriting Internet gods. After all, he's much beloved around the Interwebs and is just like us. If there were a weekly sports magazine like "US Weekly" then there would be a picture of Chris Kluwe shopping in GameStop in the "Athletes: They're Just Like Us" section. So forgive me in advance for even thinking of retorting to what Kluwe may have written. I'm just happy he doesn't bitch about a tough cab ride or criticize the conversation that some people may have in public.

Good news, everyone! Apparently Peter King is on vacation (the lazy bum), and for some reason he decided I would be an excellent choice to fill in for him on MMQB. He chose poorly. Normally I would decline, since I have to remain super-duper-hyper focused on punting 27 hours a day, but fortunately we're in the dead month of the NFL year and I don't really have a lot going on right now (other than focusing).

I like the "Indiana Jones" reference, but don't like the whole "Athletes are supposed to take sports so seriously, which is ridiculous" commentary. I get it, athletes and fans shouldn't be expected to take sports so seriously. The best time to mock this might not be in a weekly NFL column on a sports site when the dedication and focus you are mocking has made you wealthier than 99% of the rest of the world.

Where to start, where to start ...

Let's start with the life cycle of the common athleta Americae vensica (that's Latin for "Google translate").

Apparently Peter left some jokes around for Kluwe to try out on the MMQB audience.

After a week or so, you scrape together some money to split a rental car with a couple of the other undrafted rookies, because the walls of your hotel room get that much closer every day. Eventually, OTAs end, and you head home for the month of July, head still spinning, and try to stay in shape.

While staying in shape doesn't sound very easy, and isn't easy, it's also the job of an NFL player. You are in the NFL partly because of your physical condition that allows you to perform at the highest level of football and part of your job is making sure you stay in that physical condition. For a defensive tackle, that means not losing 35 pounds after OTAs and for a wide receiver it means not gaining 35 pounds after OTAs.

If you're lucky enough to survive the roster cuts and make the 53-man roster, you go find a place to live -- generally a rental apartment or a townhouse because you don't know if you're going to last the entire year. Some guys make it, some don't, and just because you're one of the 53 at the start of the regular season doesn't mean you'll be there at the end.

Though in the case of a punter or kicker, you do know if you perform well during the season then you will probably be on the roster at the end of the season. Not too many teams replace their kicker the way a special-teams player might be replaced, where the 52nd or 53rd player on the roster is a backup and might be replaced mid-season to fill a position on the roster that has been decimated by injuries. Teams usually only carry one kicker and punter. So what Kluwe says is true, there's very little job security, but assuming a kicker or punter performs well during the season then job security should follow for at least the rest of that season.

If you're lucky, you sign an extension with your team and stick around the community you've come to know, attend birthdays and barbecues and bachelor parties. You make a life, maybe start a family, upgrade to a house with room for a dog (or two) and possibly a kid (or two). You start thinking about schools, about long-term plans with the friends you've made in your new environment, about the events you're committed to and the causes you're supporting, and you start talking to your agent about negotiating another extension.

Then you get cut and you're a rookie all over again, because it's the NFL.

You are a rookie all over again, albeit a rookie who is now a millionaire and has already signed an $8.3 million extension. Then you are a rookie, but find work quickly and get a $840,000 veteran minimum to sign with another NFL team. So you are a rookie, but you get paid like a veteran after you have already been paid more than most other rookies get paid. There's that small loophole in the "you're a rookie all over again" comment as it relates to being cut...at least in the case of Chris Kluwe.

Some of you may have seen an impassioned plea I wrote for a rival website

I'm not sure Deadspin is in any way a rival to CNNSI.com. They seem to have two completely different missions. Both sites have a moronic comments below the articles, so perhaps they compete for some of the idiots who seem to comment on some of the articles, but otherwise Deadspin is very different from CNNSI.

about how basically Peter King and the other voting members of the Hall of Fame are failing to do their jobs properly because there are no punters or specialists in the Hall (along with only one pure kicker). 

There should be so many more punters in the Hall of Fame. Personally, I'd like to see at least 8 punters per year placed in the Hall of Fame. What a travesty.

"How do you put in a punter when you only have five slots and so many other deserving players?" That's how the reasoning that keeps perpetuating this problem goes.

Actually, there's a simple fix for that. Change the selection criteria.

Whatever it takes to rig the system to get more punters and kickers into the Hall of Fame, it must be done. Change the selection criteria, execute Hall of Fame voting members who won't vote for a punter or kicker, whatever it takes.

Right now, the Hall of Fame is a straight up horse-trading session (truth in advertising: I've never been in the voting process, but it's not hard to read between the lines). Some voters have their guys, and other voters have their other guys. So when 46 people are in a room trying to narrow down a list of 25 candidates to five Hall of Famers, there's going to be dealing between the voters to get guys in, especially since an 80 percent majority vote is required.

Kluwe is absolutely right about this. It's pretty clear the Hall of Fame voting process is a horse-trading session. Voter A agrees to vote for Player A if Voter B will vote for Voter A's guy, Player B. It's how the world works, but there is probably a better way to do Hall of Fame voting. I would imagine the voting system used by the Baseball Hall of Fame is a better system. In that system, the voter usually just votes for whichever player he best remembers had an exciting moment in the postseason or vote for a guy the Baseball Hall of Fame voter doesn't suspect, using his vast medical and investigative experience, of using PED's. It's a pretty sophisticated system the Baseball Hall of Fame voter uses.

So here's how we fix it! 

Change the selection criteria to: Two to four offensive players, two to four defensive players, and zero to one specialists/administrators.

That's a good idea. It makes the voting more flexible by adding in a specialist/administrator category, but making the voting less flexible by insisting the voters have to put in two defensive or offensive players. I'm not against more specialists entering the Hall of Fame, but I don't know about providing a minimum or maximum of players that can enter the Hall of Fame from the offensive and defensive side of the ball. Plus, I'm not sure including zero to one specialists/administrators on the ballot will cause the Hall of Fame voters to include a specialist or administrator. They still could look at this position as not being worthy of a Hall of Fame vote, even if the number of players who can be voted in per year goes from 5 to 8. I think the Pro Football Hall of Fame should increase the amount of players who can be voted in during a given year, but I'm not sure this would mean more specialists would have a better chance of making it into the Hall of Fame over the long run. Some voters would still have a problem voting in a kicker over an offensive/defensive player. Specialists and defensive/offensive players will still get compared to each other, just in a different way.

Kluwe's idea could have some merit, but it is basically an idea that consists of giving the voters permission to vote for a specialist/administrator by including a "specialist/administrator" category. I'm not sure the voters need permission like this. The issue is the voters are still going to compare Ray Guy to Michael Strahan (or another offensive/defensive player) and possibly not vote Guy into the Hall of Fame. In short, I don't know if this fixes the problem by simply creating a category for specialists/administrators.

That's it. Nice and simple. The Hall can keep the 80 percent majority horse-wrangling alive and well,

I would personally work on a Hall of Fame that gets rid of as much of this horse-wrangling as possible if I were a person who felt like proposing ideas to improve the Football Hall of Fame voting process.

it can keep the cut-down from 25 to 15, but now it has the option to include the players who might otherwise be overlooked simply because all the slots fill up too fast in that final cut-down from 15 to five.

The issue I can see is that the voters will then have to decide between a borderline Hall of Fame offensive/defensive player over a specialist. In that case, the offensive/defensive player is probably going to win out in the minds of the voters. It doesn't make it right, but I feel like this is the reality. Voters can vote for a maximum of 8 players, but that doesn't mean they will be more inclined to vote in a specialist. It may mean they will be more inclined to stick to a smaller number of inductees in a given year.

Notice that I'm not even putting a minimum requirement on specialists -- if the voters really think there's no qualified candidate, they don't have to vote one in.

One or two specialists may end up in the Hall of Fame if this rule were implemented, but I don't know if this rule change would cause voters to consider more specialists for the Hall of Fame in the long run. Opening up the voting to a larger number of candidates being inducted into the Pro Football Hall of Fame could easily cause have zero effect on specialists being voted into the Hall of Fame.

However, I think there are a lot of voters who simply can't reconcile putting in a Ray Guy or a Jason Hanson over a Jim Marshall or a Randy Moss, even though Ray (and Steve and Reggie and Adam) made just as much of an impact at their respective positions.

But the voters are still going to be forced to decide between Jim Marshall and Jason Hanson in a different way. If the voters are on the fence about Jim Marshall, are they really going to submit a vote for Jason Hanson in the specialist position? There's still going to be a bias towards offensive/defensive players. In a way there is no getting around the consideration of an offensive/defensive player versus a specialist. The thought process may still be "If we don't vote Jim Marshall into the Hall of Fame, how can we vote for Jason Hanson to enter the Hall of Fame?"

To me, and I think to a lot of other people, that's what a Hall of Fame is all about: Players who impact the game at their position at such a high level that everyone notices. I believe those players deserve a chance to be recognized, regardless of what position the impact was made at.

The bigger issue is going to be changing the voter's thinking about specialists and their place in the Hall of Fame. That's the major issue, not whether voters feel like they have permission to vote for a specialist or opening up enough potential Hall of Fame spots to where a specialist could be included without taking away the spot of an offensive/defensive player. At the end of the day, no matter how the categories are sorted out, many voters will still compare an offensive/defensive player to a specialist when determining which player should enter the Hall of Fame. It becomes less of a "Offensive/Defensive player or specialist?" argument and more of a "If we let Jason Hanson into the Hall of Fame, shouldn't we let Jim Marshall in as well?" argument.

I drove my car back from Minnesota to California the other day (if you're interested, the descent into madness is on my Twitter feed), and it got me to thinking: Everyone should take a road trip across the U.S. at some point in order to get a sense of just how big this planet that we live on is, and how diverse this country that we live in is.

No MMQB would be complete without a Peter King-ish thought like this. Everyone should do exactly what Kluwe is doing. Everyone needs to gain the perspective he has the time and money to allow himself to gain.

It would do a lot of people a lot of good to realize that the world isn't just the 25 square miles surrounding their house. Broaden your horizons. You might find something new. You might even like it!

People do tend to leave the 25 square mile area, but perhaps not drive all the way across the country. The two issues in traveling across the country are time and money, which are two things most people don't necessarily have. Most people love to broaden their horizons, but taking a road trip across the United States probably isn't something everyone can do. Chalk one up to being a professional athlete and having some sense of an offseason that most people don't have.

Mr. Starwood Preferred Member Travel Note of the Week

I've also been doing a lot of traveling in airplanes lately, speaking at schools and whatnot,

Yeah, you know, just speaking at schools. No big deal. Kluwe is in demand to talk to the kids, he thought just he would mention it. Everyone should try to speak at schools and whatnot, it gives such a great perspective on the world outside the 25 square miles surrounding their house. Try to be a public speaker. Go to schools and start speaking to the kids. You might find you like it and get the perspective on the world that Chris Kluwe has and likes to tell us that we need to get.

The 3DS is the perfect size and heft to bludgeon the person in front of me when they lean their seat back into my knees, and then the headphone cord can be used to quickly garrote their stunned body. Executed properly, this technique will save you countless hours of aggravation on plane trips, especially if you happen to be 6-foot-5 or taller and don't like wasting money on first class.

Peter King says flying first class is NEVER money wasted. It helps to keep you away from the middle-class people who are insistent about going about their lives while Peter leers at them from over the top of the seat in front of him.

Factoid of the Week That May Interest Only Me

The NSA is building a giant spy facility in Utah so it can read all your sexting emails. This facility definitely violates parts of the Bill of Rights that protect your right to cyberhump "bigbuttz420xxx" in private (though probably not in that exact language), but most people don't seem to care anymore. So it goes.

It's not that most people don't seem to care anymore, it's that very little can be done. If Chris Kluwe knows of a way to stop the NSA from building a spy facility I would love to hear his suggestion. After all, I don't speak at schools and have the perspective that a road trip across the United States would provide me, so he's clearly the expert here.

Want me to write my Congressman? The government either spies on us and flaunts it in our face or doesn't tell us when they spy on us. It's happening either way and I am very open to suggestions as to how to stop this. Merely saying "most people don't seem to care anymore" doesn't seem to go a long way to solving the problem once the problem has been found.

"How is that Miami's ball?"

-- @SI_PeterKing, aka Peter King, watching the NBA finals.

YOU ARE ONLY SUPPOSED TO TALK ABOUT FOOTBALL PETER WHAT ARE YOU DOING RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE.

It's not that Peter is only supposed to talk about football, it is that some of Peter's observations are surrounded by Peter saying something like, "I'm not an expert on this and haven't ever watched field hockey before, but why don't they use sticks made out of aluminum foil?" Peter can obviously talk about whatever he likes to talk about, and he does, but his observations on other sports seem to come across as uninformed or incredibly obvious. Then there are the times Peter says Derek Jeter is the best player he has ever seen play the game of baseball. Those times are the worst.

Ten Things I Think I Think I Know I Think I Know I Think

1. I think that this part is going to be tangentially about football, if at all, because there are so many other things in life than sports.

If you took a road trip across the United States these insights could be yours too.

It's extremely possible to both follow sports and also be knowledgeable about the current state of the world, just like it's extremely possible to both play sports and have interests outside your job. 

I'm not sure entirely what this means, but it could very well be Kluwe's response to those who don't like an NFL player having an opinion on social issues.

TRES. I think some people skate by on natural talent as long as they can, and never realize they should have put the time in to get better. You can yell at those people, but gently.

Be somewhat lazy with your yelling at these people. Yell at them, but do it gently and don't let it take up too much of your time. Unless these people's laziness is preventing you from doing your job well or causing you to not do your job well. This type of person may indeed eventually burn in Hell and it is perfectly acceptable to yell at them in a non-gentle fashion.

octo. I think bullying is a serious problem in the culture of athletics, and we need to be doing more to prevent it from happening.

Maybe that's the reason for the NSA facility in Utah. The NSA is looking to monitor and look out for bullies and prevent them from bullying others.

I think some people may not realize when they're bullying someone. Here's a hint -- if you wouldn't like someone doing to you what you're doing to them, you're being a bully. Grow up and develop some empathy.

So my boss is being a bully when he asks me to do more work when I am currently already doing enough work to fill my day? He wouldn't like it if I gave him more work to do, so I'll just tell him next time he is being a bully and report him to the new NSA facility in Utah.

Also, what's empathy? I don't understand the word and don't comprehend how bullying can negatively affect a person.

x. I think you should get back to work before your boss fires you.

Well, I have decided my boss is a bully so reading MMQB at work is how I am getting back at him. Well, that and slowly poisoning his c---I mean shooting him mean looks. 

And look, no "Adieu Haiku"! Let's enjoy this short break from short-form Japanese poetry.

8 comments Bottom-of-the-Barrel's Pickoffapalooza 2012: Superbowl

So here it is, if you can pick yourself up after the extraordinary tension of the Pro-Bowl. Was at work during the Pro-Bowl and was going to consider checking the score and literally couldn't be fucked even clicking the relevant app on my phone. Who actually won? Allow me also to hate on the bye week break (again) for the Superbowl. Sucks the life out of it, I'm not sure when I actually should start reading up on it (articles are "ELI MANNING - ELITE!!!" about a billion times by the looks of things), and by now I'm basically ready for baseball.

Anyway, here it is, SAWX AND YANKS!

GIANTS VS NEW ENGLAND (-3.0)

By the way, bookmakers everywhere are cheering big time for the Patsies here. They started at 3.5 and would be into 2.5 if crossing three wasn't the most difficult journey ever for bookmakers. Anyway, gentlemen, it's time to pick, ensure you choose...wisely.

Jon

NEW ENGLAND -3.0
NEW ENGLAND 30-24

I think this game will be pretty evenly matched. While the Giants are playing very good football I don't think they will be able to defeat a determined New England team. I see the Patriots taking care of the ball and ultimately doing what they do, dominating time of possession and keeping the Giants' offense off the field. That said, New York has the weapons to score quickly and to keep this game close.

Sean

NEW ENGLAND -3.0
NEW ENGLAND 34-24

Too much Giants hype and not enough respect for Tom Brady being really fucking good. New York is playing well, but the strength of their team (the pass rush) will be negated by Brady's propensity to get rid of the ball quickly. Pats roll.

Chris

NEW ENGLAND -3.0
NEW ENGLAND 27-23

My city, Indianapolis is playing host to Super Bowl XLVI, with 150,000 + visitors expected in the Circle City. The excess of entertainment and our societal devotion to the NFL are on full display in the streets of downtown Indianapolis. The eyes of the world will be upon us in a few short days, and it is almost enigmatic the energy and efforts extended for one game. Just one single game.

Granted, it is the one game that will further define the already rich legacies of two proud flagship NFL franchises. One game that can tie Tom Brady with Terry Bradshaw as the only quarterbacks to win four rings. One game that would give Eli Manning indisputable proof of his elite status amongst this generation of signal callers. One game that might be able to bring some degree of peace to the heart of Patriots owner Robert Kraft, whose endured the painful loss of wife Myra to cancer.

For the past ten days the second and infinitely more important meeting between the New York Giants and New England Patriots this season has been dissected, analyzed, and discussed from every conceivable angle. Every stat, story, and sound bite has been spread to the four corners of the Earth, leaving nothing about either team, or its players unknown.

For that reason I refuse to throw out a bunch of stats and figures this week as in past write-ups. The strengths and weaknesses of these two teams are known. By virtue of being the lone two teams whose players will not be in street clothes on Sunday, the Giants and Patriots must be playing pretty good football right now. Sure, Ravens kicker Billy Cundiff, and 49ers punt returned Kyle Williams deserve a Super Bowl ring depending on the victor, no one ever said that a bit of luck and fortune weren’t part of the equation.

Whichever team is able to take care of the ball, and get defensive stops at key points in the game will be the champions. That almost goes without saying. I make that statement more so to say that I think these teams are unconventional enough in the paths they’ve taken this season, and leading up to this culmination. With a penchant for winning games oftentimes while exhibiting poor play on one side of the ball or the other. Demonstrating they can win games despite playing imperfect football.. The Giants were a 9-7 regular season ball club, and the Patriots somehow have advanced despite the handicap of a defense ranked next to last in the entire league. Bill Belicheck has transformed his team yet again, this time with a most potent offense led by virtually unstoppable dual tight ends. Hopefully Gronkowski is healthy enough to be effective, and not be a decoy or hindrance. While the Giants late season surge, and fearsome pass rush mirror the very characteristics of their last Championship run.

This one, last single game of the season is a contest between two evenly matched teams. Teams with some similar qualities that blur the line just enough that you can’t really discern who has a decisive edge. Teams with different, but equally matched strengths, capable of being the deciding factor in what should be a closely contested affair.

Jimmy

GIANTS +3.0
GIANTS 38-27

Having talked about both teams for collectively five games, it might be appropriate to zoom out a bit and look at the big picture, and it just so happens we have a Superbowl which is very conducive to the big picture. Normally looking at a game from four years ago is a bit ridiculous, but maybe not in this case, as the Giants and Pats are two of the most stable franchises in football. The coaches remain from four years ago. Bradshaw, Jacobs, Umenyiora, Tuck, Manning, Ross, Webster, McKenzie, Snee, Diehl, Mankins, Koppen, Light, Wilfork, Brady and Welker all return. That is a list of most of the relevant players in this game. But I'm more interested in the changes since that game. The Giants are unequivocally better. Their receivers outside of Burress (who had one of the best receiving seasons I have ever seen that year) were decidedly mediocre going into that Superbowl. Now they boast one of the best receiver troikas in the game. Their defensive line trades an aging Strahan for the most athletic defensive player in the league. Eli Manning is much, much better than four years ago. Their offensive line might be slightly worse, but although the numbers looked bad last week, I thought they protected outstanding against San Fran early, and Manning took some sacks in lieu of making some risky throws (New York had no turnovers) he might have let go against a less dangerous ballhawking secondary. Six sacks and twelve hits also isn't quite as bad as it sounds when you consider New York called pass 64 times against a fine pass rushing team. So there's just about nowhere New York is definitively worse, and several areas they are significantly improved.

New England are the opposite. Harrison, Seymour, Bruschi, Ty Warren, Meriweather, Adalius Thomas, Vrabel, Samuel, Hobbs are all defensive subtractions from that team. Now, I understand that many of those players were well past their prime, overrated or both. But even so, just a sense of experience, intelligence, sanity and serenity in the defensive team will be sorely missed in the chaos of the ensuing two weeks. I mean the only meaningful addition is Jerod Mayo (and Mark Anderson, sort of, I guess), who had his worst season as a pro this year. The defense is undoubtedly worse, probably much worse (even though defense was hardly considered a strength of the 2008 team, they finished 4th in YPG against and 4th in PPG against). I know what you're thinking, Gronkowski and Hernandez, sure, Welker is better and Green-Ellis is probably an upgrade over Maroney but remember, Randy Moss had 1,500 yards and 23 touchdowns that year. By and large, I don't think there's much debate that New England is not the same team they were four years ago. I think both changes to the Giants and Patriots are fairly substantial, and I do think it's relevant - Superbowls are different than other games and I think how these teams responded to it four years ago is at least slightly instructive.

So is the win in Foxboro - without Hakeem Nicks, it should be said. I have mentioned how insanely hard it is to win in New England and the Giants did it, and while it did require a Manning game winning drive, there's nothing especially unusual about those drives this year. Eli's fourth quarter heroics are by now quite famous, and considering his playoff exploits, he has to be considered just about the most clutch QB in the league. The Giants have beaten Green Bay, San Francisco and New England, all on the road, the three top seeds in the NFL. They also beat Atlanta, a 10 win team, by three scores. Meanwhile, I have painstakingly compiled a list of New England's wins against teams with a winning record at the end of their season. This took a lot of time and research, so I encourage you to look over it closely;

Baltimore.

That's it. That's the list. Because Lee Evans dropped a TD pass and Billy Cundiff missed a 32 yard field goal. Their best win outside of Massachusetts is against Denver. Denver. Great.

I mentioned the Giants offensive line, who I have been broadly impressed with over the last few weeks, even though on paper it looked messy against the Niners. This game is on them, because what was apparent against Baltimore, and I suppose has been all year for the Pats, is that if you stop their pass rush, they are just completely impotent defensively. I mean, obviously every team wants a pass rush, and are a better functioning team when it is clicking for them getting to the quarterback. But it's just absolutely critical for New England as it's the only thing they do remotely competently. With a decent rush, they are a below average defense. Without it, they don't have a defense basically at all. They got to Flacco early and Baltimore's bad offense did nothing, but when Baltimore's line settled in, Flacco (Flacco!) was dissecting them with ease. Pay no mind to the "New England made stops when they needed to" storyline. It's bullshit. Yeah sure, they got a pick and a fourth down stop. Whoop de doo. They were just awful on basically every other defensive play of the second half. They gave up 213 yards (389 on Baltimore's last eight drives) and if this went into OT, I doubt the Patriots would have been able to hold on. New England is going to have to, at minimum, duplicate San Francisco's pass rush to have any hope here, against an offense infinitely better than Denver or Baltimore, and I think it's fairly obvious the chances of that are slim. I think Eli is going to absolutely go beserk on New England here. The best quarterback (by QB rating) New England have beaten was Philip Rivers (Matt Moore, no shit, was the second). It would be literally unprecidented for them this year to beat a QB or an offense of this class. I was intrigued by the performance against Denver, but probably should have known better - New England are just too atrocious defensively to take particulary seriously against good opposition, and New York easily qualifies.

Ben

Patriots (-3.0)

New England 31-20

My preseason Super Bowl pick was New England-Atlanta. I chose the Patriots to win this game back in the fall. I haven’t changed my mind since then. One of the biggest discussions I have had over the past week has been people asking me when the Giants became an unstoppable football team, to the point it seems like the Patriots should not be favored in the game? I’m not sure. I realize the Giants are peaking at the right time, but I still feel like the Patriots are the better team. As strong as the Giants have looked in these playoffs, this game has all the makings of a statement game from Brady and Belichick.

There have also been constant discussions about this game being just like the 2007 Super Bowl, which I believe to be stupid. These two teams did play earlier this year with the Giants winning that game, but I am not sure how much can be learned from this earlier game. I made a comment in a recent TMQ post that I didn’t think either of these games tell us much about the upcoming Super Bowl. This was in response to Gregg Easterbrook having made a comment the Patriots should win the game because they beat the Giants in 2007 and then lost to the Giants in the Super Bowl that year. So Gregg's logic dictated with the Giants winning earlier this year it bodes well for a Patriots victory in the Super Bowl. Commenter “JJJJShabado" did some research and came up with 11 Super Bowls where there were rematches. He posted the research in the comments and I asked his permission to post it here since I found it interesting:

2007: Giants d Patriots (Patriots d Giants in Week 17)
2001: Patriots d Rams (Rams d Patriots in Week 10)
1999: Rams d Titans (Titans d Rams in Week 8)
*1994: 49ers d Chargers (49ers d Chargers in Week 15)
1993: Cowboys d Bills (Bills d Cowboys in Week 2)
1990: Giants d Bills (Bills d Giants in Week 15)
*1986: Giants d Broncos (Giants d Broncos in Week 12)
1983: Raiders d Redskins (Redskins d Raiders in Week 5)
*1981: 49ers d Bengals (49ers d Bengals in Week 14)
1980: Raiders d Eagles (Eagles d Raiders in Week 12)
*1977: Cowboys d Broncos (Cowboys d Broncos in Week 14)

So 63.7% of the time the team has lost the regular season match-up and has won the Super Bowl.

In terms of probability, you would expect this allocation 16%, assuming each team has a 50-50 shot of winning the Super Bowl.

The starred entries are times when the team that won the first game also won the Super Bowl. It is interesting that out of the six Super Bowl rematches since 1990, the team that lost the first game won the second game. So it seems the current trend (if we can call six games over 22 years a "trend" at all) is for teams that won the first game to lose in the Super Bowl. I’m not sure this information really tells us anything (though I appreciate the research) for the upcoming game though. I'm not even sure if this is a similar game to the 2007 Super Bowl, or even the matchup earlier this year. So it may be dangerous to use any previous games these two teams have played over the past few seasons to predict the outcome of the current Super Bowl matchup.

So what does this information tell me? It tells me we can look back at previous games two teams may have played, but it doesn’t necessarily help predict the outcome. Maybe in terms of strategy the team that lost the first game would have an advantage in they will want to gameplan and scheme around the problems that caused the loss in the first game, while the team that won the first game will want to somewhat continue a gameplan that worked in the first game. Teams that win a game probably won't radically change a gameplan away from something that previously worked. Maybe this is a stupid line of thought and both teams would radically change their gameplan, I don't know.

I think that’s the biggest lesson we can learn is that each NFL game (cliché alert) is its own game and has to be judged on its own without us “learning” too much from the first game. What we “learn” is only relevant in terms of that previous game in many cases. Sports don't have hard and fast rules, like "put your hand on a hot stove and your hand will get burnt." It is hard to say because Play X/Strategy X worked last time it will work again in a rematch between the same two teams. So I believe it is hard to look at the previous Giants-Patriots game, and especially the Super Bowl from four years ago, and think that tells us something about this Sunday's Super Bowl.

I’ve heard all week about how the Patriots made Brady uneasy in the pocket and they are in his head. Few quarterbacks can be effective with pressure in his face. Eli Manning handles pressure in his face well, but it still affects his play. Both teams are obviously going to want to put pressure on the other team’s quarterback and neither team has a great defense, so the offensive line play on each side will make a huge difference in the game. Eli Manning seems to be playing well, absent the Giants second half struggles against the 49ers, and Tom Brady has sworn he won’t play as poorly against the Giants as he did against the Ravens. So both quarterbacks are coming off less than typical stellar performances. The good news for both quarterbacks is the opposing defenses aren’t nearly as strong as the Ravens and 49ers defense.

I feel like the Giants are an overwhelming pick for this game. They are the favorites without actually being favored. I’m not sure I see it. I don’t see them being able to cover Gronkowski, Hernandez, and Welker and I think the Patriots are really motivated to prepare and play well in this game. The Giants have gotten their shit together recently and put on a great run through the playoffs. As many questions as I have about the Patriots being able to cover the Giants receivers, I have as many questions about the Giants stopping the Patriots tight ends. The 49ers showed two weeks ago a good defense can get pressure on Manning and force him to look uncomfortable in the pocket. The Patriots want to do the same thing to Manning.

I look for the Patriots to get the ball out of Brady’s hand quickly in the passing game and try to run the ball on the Giants early in the game to slow down their pass rush. I don’t know if the Giants will be able to run the ball on the Patriots with Wilfork in the middle of the line. The key to beating the Giants is to force them to blitz in order to get pressure on Brady and test their average secondary. The game will be closer than my predicted score indicates. I feel like the Patriots are going to run the ball with Woodhead, Benjarvus Green-Ellis and others (Hernandez?) in order to keep pressure off Brady and I believe the secondary will hold up well enough to slow down the Giants.

So rejoice Giants fans. I am picking against your team for the third time in these playoffs. That means I will probably be wrong since I have been wrong three times before. I hope everyone enjoys the Super Bowl. I still would like to see it played on Saturday night in order to prevent me from having to go to work the next day. Of course the NFL is terrified no one will watch the Super Bowl on Saturday night or that groups of people will go to bars to watch the game. I’m not sure I buy this very much. I still think people would stay at home to see the game and commercials, but I could be wrong.

Jimmy: NYG (+3.0)

Sean: NE (-3.0)

Jon: NE (-3.0)

Ben: NE (-3.0)

Chris: NE (-3.0)

Bill Simmons: NE (-3.0)