Showing posts with label hype. Show all posts
Showing posts with label hype. Show all posts

Wednesday, April 8, 2015

5 comments MMQB Review: Peter King Inquires About Nate Boyer's Personal Death Toll, Because He Has No Sense of Tact Edition

Peter King talked about the teams that "controlled" the draft in last week's MMQB. He also rosterbated on what the Vikings should do with Adrian Peterson and got a few quotes from NFL coaches that helped his readers learn Marvin Lewis isn't worried about Andy Dalton in the playoffs (a lie), Pete Carroll would call the same play again in the Super Bowl (a lie...even though Carroll didn't call the play) and no one has a clue how to fix Jay Cutler other than to run draw plays (probably true). This week talks about a feel-good story, a woman who is going to officiate NFL games (don't tell Chris Paul), is shocked by how salaries differ in a sport with a salary cap as compared to a sport without a salary cap, and takes a quick shot at Josh Freeman because he's given the opportunity to do so.

Before I get to one of the most amazing subjects of any Monday Morning Quarterback column in the 18 years I’ve been writing it—so please do not stray—a paean to baseball’s Opening Day, sort of, from one of its brightest stars.

Peter had never heard of this "Mike Trout" player until last year, but then he came in and played really well against the Red Sox. Now he knows him. What a player this Mike Trout guy is!

Late in spring training, on the Angels’ practice field, Mike Trout, American League MVP and Philadelphia Eagles season-ticket-holder, is telling this wacky story from last September. I’d seen video of a game on the Angels’ TV network from last fall. On the replay, the screen is split. On one side, Trout, in center field for the Angels on a Sunday afternoon, is peering into the Angels’ broadcast booth, 300 feet away. On the other half of the screen, where Trout is looking, is Angels color man Mark Gubicza. They both love the Eagles. Gubicza starts to flap his arms, in the “Fly Eagles Fly” gesture the Philly fans use. Excited, Trout starts to flap his wings too.

I'm glad this story preempted Peter's story about a Green Beret trying to make it into the NFL as a long-snapper, because this story could not wait and had to be told immediately. This is a developing story that won't stop breaking.

“I was fired up about the game, and I told Guby during batting practice, ‘Hey, I’m gonna look up every inning. Let me know—if we’re doing good, give me the ‘Fly Eagles Fly’ signal. If we’re not, give me this.'” Trout made the throat-slash gesture.

Oh, the throat-slash gesture.

Get ready for a stupid question from Peter.

“He’s, like, 300 feet away,” I say. “How can you see him? What’s your eyesight?”

Peter King just asked an MLB outfielder how he saw a person flapping his arms in a broadcast booth 300 feet away. MLB outfielders routinely play 280-300 feet away from home plate where they follow a tiny white ball hit off a bat thrown by a pitcher (the ball, not the bat...unless Roger Clemens is on the mound) that is traveling between 75-100 mph when it is hit by the batter. Mike Trout plays outfield, where he is able to track down and catch this little ball in a glove, but Peter is shocked AND AMAZED that Mike Trout can see a man flapping his arms from that distance. Following a little white ball from 300-400 feet? No problem? Seeing a man flapping his arms from 300 feet? HOW DID YOU DO THAT!?

Typical Peter King. He's amazed by the little things in life. Mike Trout tracks a baseball down for a living. A dude flapping his arms when Trout is looking for him shouldn't be hard to see.

Now for the big question: What about all these offseason moves by madman Chip Kelly?

Yes, I definitely need football analysis from Mike Trout. Peter is holding off telling what he states is one of his favorite stories in MMQB history to tell a story about Mike Trout watching another person flapping his arms and getting Trout's opinion on the Eagles' offseason moves. Priorities.

“I’ve been shocked, for sure,” Trout says. “But, you know, Chip Kelly’s got something up his sleeve. If he thinks Sam Bradford’s the guy, you know, you gotta trust it. He has one thing in mind, and that’s winning a Super Bowl. Whatever it takes. Whatever he thinks is right, that’s what he’s gonna do.

Insightful. Glad Peter asked. Now let's hear more about how Trout found a way to see Mark Gubicza flap his arms in a broadcasting booth. What magic he performs!

The phone rang in Nate Boyer’s shoebox of a studio apartment in L.A. on Sept. 11, 2001, waking up the 20-year-old man without a life compass. Boyer looked at his clock … 6 a.m.
“Nate,” his mother said, “turn on the TV.”
“What channel?” Boyer said.
“Doesn’t matter,” his mother said.
Boyer had a 19-inch TV with a rabbit-ears antenna, and he turned it on. The World Trade Center was on fire. In an hour, one of the twin towers collapsed; a half-hour after that, the second one fell.

Peter King wasn't in New York City that day, but just how he managed to empathize with Ivan Maisel because he lost his daughter for five minutes in a grocery store, Peter knows how New Yorkers felt that day. One time the fire got out of control in his fire pit at home and melted his cell phone. It ruined a lawn chair too. It was basically his version of 9-11.

This is the day Boyer’s life changed—as so many lives did in so many different ways. It’s crazy to say that it’s the seminal event in a life that led Boyer to a refugee camp in Darfur three years later, then to enlist in the Army, then to multiple tours of duty as a Green Beret, then to enroll as a 29-year-old freshman at the University of Texas, then to a walk-on tryout for the Longhorns football team,

That isn’t even the craziest thing about the Nate Boyer story. This is: When he walked on at Texas, he had never played a snap of football in the first 29 years of his life. Mack Brown, the coach at the time, didn’t know until the end of Boyer’s second year at Texas that he’d never played football.

I can't figure out for the life of me why Mack Brown got fired.

"Wait, our quarterback doesn't have a scholarship to play football for us? Why is he walking on four legs? Our quarterback is a dog? How come no one told me about this?" (Mack Brown fires his defensive coordinator out of habit)

Boyer made it happen. The man who never played the game mostly taught himself how to long-snap on his final special-forces tour, coming back to fall practice at Texas determined to win the job. He practiced and drilled himself into playing 38 Big 12 Conference games, which is why there’s a glimmer of hope that this incredible football life has a chance to continue this summer at an NFL training camp near you.

Wait, there is an NFL training camp near me? The closest one I know of is three hours away.

“I need teams to look past the fact I’m 34 years old, obviously,” Boyer said from Los Angeles on Friday. “I’m not your average 34-year-old.”

Plus, he's a long-snapper. Age isn't always a huge issue for long-snappers. It's not like Boyer is a quarterback like Brandon Weeden or Chris Weinke.

This is what Boyer is up against, as he attempts to become one of 1,696 active players in the most exclusive sports league in America:

The NBA would like for you to redo your math on that one, Peter. 53 players and 32 teams comes to 1696 players and the NBA has 15 players on a team and 30 teams. That's 450 players. So by "most exclusive" I think Peter means "Don't check my math to determine if this is factually correct."

Oh, and NHL teams have 23 players on the roster and there are 30 teams. That comes to 690 players. Maybe Peter means something else by "most exclusive."

His age. Ever hear of a 34-year-old NFL rookie? NFL teams frown on 25-year-old rookies. Add nine years, and most are going to say, “Incredible story. Good luck, Nate.”

He's a long-snapper. Again, I'm not sure age is as large of an issue for long-snappers.

His size. Boyer is 5-11 and 220 pounds. The average size of the current 32 long-snappers: 6-2 ½, 246. One snapper is shorter than 6-0 (Houston’s Jonathan Weeks, at 5-10). Two snappers are lighter than 230 (Falcon Josh Harris, at 224; Denver’s Aaron Brewer, at 225).

And this could be an issue. The NFL frowns on college players who are small for their position as much as they frown on college players who are older for a rookie.

Boyer only needs one team to say yes. No team will use a pick on the now draft-eligible Boyer, but NFL teams will bring 90 players to camp in late July. Every team signs 20 to 25 undrafted college free agents for training camp. Theoretically, then, Boyer is competing to be one of 650 or so undrafted players invited to one of the 32 NFL camps.

“You may not look at me and think, ‘This guy is capable of anything,’ but nothing is going to stop me,” Boyer said. “I might die trying, but I will work till the last beat of my heart to accomplish the mission—

Oh man, if Nate Boyer died trying to make an NFL team then Roger Goodell would REALLY have to plug his ears and cover his eyes in an effort to pretend he didn't know nothing and try to rehab the NFL's image.

Boyer had no college degree, no discernible skill, and so no relief or medical agency would retain him to work in the relief camps for Darfur refugees. So he flew to Chad. When he landed, he lied about being an American doctor and about being robbed in Paris on his way to the refugee camp, and he talked himself onto a United Nations plane heading to Abéché, home to the largest refugee camp.

Ah, it's just a couple of lies all for the sake of America. The NFL would never hold the fact a college prospect lied in his past against him would they?

When he came back from Chad (his 60-day visa could not be extended), he decided to try to earn a spot in the U.S. Army Special Forces. At Fort Benning, Ga., 145 candidates started Special Forces training. Eleven, including Boyer, made it through. “I was all in,” he said. “In my free time, I did a mile of lunges without stopping.”
Whaaaaaaat?

"Yeah," Peter says, "but can you see a guy flapping his arms from 300 feet away?"

Twice in Afghanistan, Boyer felt he came close to death—including just before he returned from his last deployment in 2014. Understand that this final tour was the Special Forces’ version of a summer job. Before his last season at Texas, he deployed to Tajab, near the Afghan-Pakistan border, searching for Taliban. One day, in a firefight with some Taliban forces, the captain of the Afghan forces, fighting next to Boyer, was shot in the throat and died. That battle is when the bullet came three inches from Boyer’s face. He actually had the presence of mind to tell me it was better him in such danger than a peer with a family. “I’m not married, and I don’t have any children,” he said. “Better to have me there.”

“How many people did you kill?” I asked.

Great question, Peter. This questions shows a vast knowledge of Green Berets (and other members of the military), as a group of people who always love to be asked about all the people they have killed like they are an 8 year old playing "Super Contra" for the first time. Who the hell asks this type of question, other than a child?





Peter claims he didn't know it was bad form. I don't know what planet Peter lives on sometimes. I have not a clue how Peter has survived this long in life with some of the weirdly insensitive and tone-deaf things he Tweets.

“I am not going to answer that,” Boyer said, after a pause. “I honestly don’t know. I can tell you I am no Chris Kyle. But you don’t really know because—well, you are in these battles, and you come back, and, last year, we had one firefight with 30 enemy KIA [killed in action], and you never know for sure who got who.”

Seriously though, Peter, great question. I'm sure there is nothing Nate Boyer would like recalling more than those times he ended another person's life. It probably doesn't affect him psychologically or emotionally, so it's not an insensitive question to ask at all.

Recently, Eagles coach Chip Kelly and his sports science coordinator—former U.S. Naval Special Warfare personal coach Shaun Huls—visited Glazer’s gym. Boyer met Kelly. “How much do you weigh?” Kelly asked. That’s what every coach will want to know, at least those who are thinking of giving the longest of shots a chance.
“Two-twenty,” Boyer told him.

Then Chip Kelly tried to trade Boyer to the Packers for a 6th round pick, simply out of habit. 

One more thing: Boyer has another mission.
“The veteran suicide rate is 22 a day,” he said. “Twenty-two a day! Unacceptable. Totally unacceptable. People out there are trying to fix that, and I am one of those people. I want to prove to those leaving the military that if you believe in yourself and work and sacrifice, the same way you did in the military, you can achieve what you want in society. I want to make a difference for veterans, and what they can do in the world.”

That starts with a job offer in May, after the NFL draft.

To be fair to Nate Boyer, though it wouldn't fit Peter's want for making dramatic statements, he could very well achieve this without playing in the NFL. It's not like making the Texas football team and then being invited to an NFL team's training camp wouldn't prove that veterans can make a difference in the world once they come back from their tour of duty. I know, this isn't dramatic enough for Peter, so he'll act like the only way Boyer can make a difference for veterans is if he plays in the NFL.

The NFL’s first full-time female official will arrive in the 96th season of the league, now that Sarah Thomas has been hired. Aaron Wilson of the Baltimore Sun reported Thomas’ hire Friday, and though the league wouldn’t confirm it, the story’s a lock. Thomas will be a full-time line judge starting this summer.

Chris Paul wants to know how she'll run down the field with all of her lady parts and keep up with the middle-aged male officials?

Thomas, married with three children, became a finalist for an NFL job in 2013, was a finalist again last year, and this year, with eight new officials being hired, was finally one of the new officials elevated.

Peter should ask Sarah Thomas how she plans on balancing her work life with the time she wants to dedicate to her children and whether she is trying to "have it all." He's asking veterans how many people they killed, so he may as well go full heel in his line of questioning.

The line judge is on the line of scrimmage near the sideline, opposite the head linesman. The line judge is the backup timekeeper, works with the linesman on offside and encroachment calls, and, once the ball is snapped, follows the closest slot back or flanker to that side downfield seven yards.

Well, that's just great. Women can never be on time for anything, but the NFL is going to hire a woman to be the backup timekeeper? This will never work. Besides, how is Sarah Thomas going to follow a flanker while wearing heels? WHAT A TERRIBLE IDEA TO HIRE A WOMAN FOR A MAN'S JOB! How many people has she killed?

When she has worked, she stuffs her blonde ponytail under her hat and looks like any other official.

Thanks for pointing out what Sarah Thomas does with her hair during the game. If you had not brought it up, I would have been concerned Thomas would have been too focused on making sure her ponytail is straight as opposed to officiating the NFL game. I'm really glad Peter pointed out what Thomas does with her hair. I was deeply concerned she would try to bring a full-length mirror on the field in the middle of the game to make sure her hair looks good, just like any woman would do.

When she worked a Cleveland Browns practice in 2012, several players said they didn’t notice anything different about the line judge until it was pointed out that the line judge was a woman. If that happens on the field this year, Thomas—and the NFL—will be very happy.

She better keep that blonde ponytail tucked up under her hat or else the players may get distracted by her feminine wiles.

PFF has some good information on the draftable players. Such as:

Overrated? A sure-fire top-five pick, USC defensive tackle Leonard Williams, was underproductive in obvious passing situations. On third-and-long he produced only eight pressures (two hits, six hurries) on 94 pass rushes. That earned a Pass-Rush Productivity number of 6.4, well below the class average for interior defensive linemen of 7.6.

I don't know if this means Leonard is overrated or that teams doubled him in obvious passing situations. That's a possibility too.

Baylor quarterback Bryce Petty has a good deep arm. Petty completed 34 of 95 passes on balls thrown at least 20 yards downfield. They went for 1,472 yards, 20 touchdowns and one interception. The 20 touchdowns led all FBS quarterbacks on such deep throws, while the yardage total was second-highest.

Uh-oh, Bryce Petty is the new Tom Savage. Next thing we know, Peter King will be writing a MMQB about how Petty is the hot new quarterback in the draft because he has so many individual workouts lined up and because Petty's agent will do a great job of pretending his client is going to be drafted 1-2 rounds before any logical GM would draft him.

This is anecdotal evidence, but I wonder how many of these deep balls were thrown to receivers who were wide open as compared to thrown to receivers who were being covered and there was a tight window to throw into? I only ask because I feel like every time I saw a highlight of Baylor scoring a touchdown the ball was being thrown to a wide open receiver due to the Baylor offensive scheme being so good. Again, it's anecdotal evidence.

“We found out there was a bar called the Cricket Inn, or the Cricket, which was a popular bar there at Oklahoma State. Our [scout] would sit there for a week. He sat there for one week, went in every day at 3 o’clock and stayed till 11 o’clock at night. That was his job. And we checked: How many times did Justin Blackmon come in? And he came in too many times. And we took him off our board.”
—Former Tampa Bay GM Mark Dominik, on why the Bucs took Justin Blackmon off their draft board in 2012.
Too bad the Jaguars didn’t have a spy in the Cricket in 2012.

While this sounds slightly creepy and a little bit smart, the Buccaneers did draft Mark Barron with the 7th pick in the draft. So before marveling at how much research the Buccaneers did, I don't want to forget they took Blackmon off the draft board and then screwed up their first round pick anyway.

“It’s just like the Michael Sam situation. If he wasn’t gay, he would have gone undrafted. Instead, the league drafts him because I think they are trying to monopolize every aspect of the world. The same thing with a female ref. For the league, it’s great publicity. The NFL is all about monopolizing every opportunity.”
—Jacksonville defensive tackle Sen’Derrick Marks, to TMZ, about the NFL’s hiring of Sarah Thomas as the first full-time female game official.

It certainly sounds like the NFL is ready for a woman ref. Though I'm not sure how the NFL really got great publicity from Michael Sam getting drafted, other than it got the NFL in the news on the third day of the draft when the NFL would probably be in the news anyway.

Super Bowl MVP Tom Brady and Defensive Player of the Year J.J. Watt finished the 2014 season at the top of their respective games, Brady leading two fourth-quarter touchdown drives to win the Super Bowl over Seattle and Watt compiling one of the best defensive seasons a player has ever had.
Combined, their 2015 salary-cap number is $27.97 million. Brady’s is $14 million, Watt’s $13.97 million.
How the two NFL stars’ 2015 compensation compares to some dynamic baseball duos:


Matt Harrison/Jhonny Peralta $28.20 million
Miguel Montero/Curtis Granderson $28.00 million
Tom Brady/J.J. Watt  $27.97 million
Trevor Cahill/John Danks $27.95 million
Jayson Werth/Eric O’Flaherty $27.85 million

A few things here:

1. One sport has a salary cap and the other sport does not have a salary cap. While this may be a part of Peter's point, it's fairly obvious that a sport with a salary cap is going to have lower contract numbers for the players than a sport without a salary cap would have. It's so obvious that it doesn't really merit a comparison like this. Maybe it's more interesting than I give it credit for.

2. Peter has chosen players from baseball who are generally overpaid. How about he chooses a few baseball players that don't fit the narrative he wants to push? Baseball and football have differently salary structures. For the first 6 seasons of a baseball player's career he could end up playing for a fraction of his real worth. So Peter is choosing only the expensive underachieving/overpaid baseball players that fit his narrative. Still, baseball players make more than football players. That's not news.

3. How about Peter compares the salaries of some overpaid NFL players to MLB players that don't make quite what they are worth? How about Peter's boy Josh McCown who has a cap hit of $8.65 million from the Buccaneers and Browns. Matt Schaub has a cap hit of $2 million. That's $10.65 million for two backup quarterbacks and Mike Trout and Garrett Richards are only making $9.283 million this year!

How about Michael Johnson, who is making $9.6 million this year for the Buccaneers and Bengals? Anthony Collins is making $3 million this year. Neither of them are even on the Buccaneers team anymore. Meanwhile, the Rays are paying Evan Longoria and Alex Cobb $15 million this year.

Mr. Starwood Preferred Member Travel Note of the Week

Readers of this column know how much I love Amtrak and train travel in general. But there are some times, way too often, that stupid little things go bad on a trip, and for those who don’t love train travel the way I do, I wonder if little events like this make people say, “I’m better off driving.”

By writing "how much I love Amtrak and train travel in general" Peter means "how much I love train travel when everything goes perfectly but then I bitch about any inconvenience in train travel in the most public way possible once something goes wrong."

Thursday evening, Amtrak regional train heading north to Penn Station in New York … Train pulls out of Newark for the nine-minute ride to New York City. It took 47 minutes. It inched, stopped, inched, rode for a minute, inched, stopped, stayed stopped, inched, etc. No explanation. I’ll get on the train again, many times. A bunch of the grumblers, well, I’m not sure. Things like that happen far too often on those regional trains.

It sounds like the police should have gotten involved. This is a crime of historic proportions. I'm just glad Peter King is here to tell his audience that, in fact, public transportation is not always reliable.

Ten Things I Think I Think

1. I think the most stunning piece of news from the last few days, other than Sarah Thomas’s hiring, was Chris Mortensen’s report that the Browns had basically moved on from Johnny Manziel. The way he described it on ESPN was that, when the offensive staff was putting together the offseason program, “Manziel’s name barely even came up in conversation.” I can tell you this: Mortensen is 100 percent accurate here. In fact, when the quarterbacks have been discussed this offseason in-house, Josh McCown is the dominant talking point, and then Thad Lewis, signed last month as a free agent. Then comes Manziel and Connor Shaw.

After one season they give up on him I see. Why not?

2. I think the moral of this story is this: Manziel has done too much damage to his reputation with owner Jimmy Haslam, GM Ray Farmer and coach Mike Pettine to be taken seriously in Cleveland when he returns to the team, which is likely to be in the next week or so.

Which, by the way, Manziel's reputation won't mean shit if he comes back to Browns' camp and starts playing really well. That is the key to Browns management not giving a crap about a reputation, just start to play well. Winning cures all.

3. I think I am dubious that Manziel going to rehab was his idea.

I think I'm wondering why Peter King uses three separate numbers to discuss the exact same topic (Johnny Manziel) when these three points could all be discussed under #1. Peter does this all the time and it annoys the nitpicker in me.

All three points are about Johnny Manziel, his reputation and his future in Cleveland. Yet, for some reason, Peter believes they require three separate points rather than have these points all come under point #1.

7. I think I’ll believe the new and improved Josh Freeman—who signed with the Dolphins after being out of football last year—when I see it.

Peter can't resist getting a shot at Josh Freeman in when he sees that Freeman might get a chance to play in the NFL. I will never understand what Peter King has against Josh Freeman. All I can guess is that Freeman helped get Peter King's friend Greg Schiano fired in Tampa Bay and that's why he doesn't like Josh Freeman. In terms of NFL players who have been overpaid by an NFL team, Freeman isn't in the Top 20 of NFL players over the last two years. Matt Schaub made something like $8 million last year to be the backup to Derek Carr and Josh McCown made $4.75 million to help the Buccaneers get the #1 overall draft pick in this year's draft through his shitty play. Still, Peter will go to bat for McCown and talk about what a great teacher he is for other quarterbacks. But Josh Freeman sucked for the Vikings and made $2 million in the process, which is a felony that Peter King won't ever let Freeman live down. I wonder why.





Either the Freeman family is sticking up for each other (they aren't related in reality) or not everyone in the NFL hates Josh Freeman with the vigor and ferocity that Peter King does.

9. I think this Chicago headline means absolutely nothing to me: “Football autographed by Cutler gets no bids at charity event.” I just don’t care that a reviled player tries to do something nice for someone, or for some charity, and doesn’t get the football bought by anyone. I understand it suggests the community doesn’t like him, but we needed fans to pass on a signed football in a charity auction to know that? I don’t think so.

Peter doesn't need to know fans passed on buying a signed Jay Cutler football in order to know Bears fans don't like him, but Peter feels it is vitally important to point out what a waste of human flesh Josh Freeman is every opportunity he can get. Freeman was out of football last year, does it merit a mention that he'll have to prove he can play quarterback at an NFL level any more than a Jay Cutler signed football not being bought proves Bears fans aren't happy with Cutler?

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

e. Mike Krzyzewski was hired to coach Duke on March 18, 1980—six days after I was hired to cover Xavier basketball and the Reds for the Cincinnati Enquirer. What a long strange trip it’s been.

And when I think of Coach K, my thoughts immediately go to the parallel that he and Peter King were hired within days of each other. Two lofty and haughty men, entering their business at the same time. Wait, Coach K went to Army. Why doesn't Peter King ask him how many people he killed?

f. I want to like Duke tonight. But I say Wisconsin on a Frank the Tank putback in the closing seconds.

It's your opinion. If you want to like Duke, you can literally do that if you want to.

j. Barry Zito outrighted to Triple-A by the A’s. I am officially not just old, but ancient.

Barry Zito is 36 years old and he isn't even close to being one of the oldest players who will be optioned to Triple-A by a major league team over the past/next few years. Why does this make Peter King feel old? Peter confuses me.

l. Coffeenerdness: Memo to Starbucks: If you want to see an assembly line of efficiency at an incredibly busy store, go to your place at Penn Station in Manhattan during morning rush hour.

Yes, every Starbucks employee in the New York area should go to the Penn Station Starbucks during the morning rush so that Peter's favorite Starbucks will be closed during this time and Peter can bitch about how not every Starbucks employee should have been away at the same time. If this did happen then it would really test the ability of the Penn Station Starbucks to handle a rush, once a thousand people all show up at the same time.

I did a quick count when I walked at about 7:45 Thursday morning. Forty-eight people, either in line or waiting for their drink. I was out with my coffee at 7:53. Three great baristas, working cheerfully, efficiently. My flat white was perfect. Not sure what the moral of the story is, other than you’ve got some really good people at that store.

I'm not sure how Peter King manages to find the time to balance his busy writing career and being the Quality Assurance Manager for every hotel/Starbucks/retail facility in the United States, but he does an impressive job of making sure everyone else is working as hard as he thinks they should be.

The Adieu Haiku

Day 73.  
Ted Wells still studying Pats.
I mean, come on now.


This very well could have just been a sentence in the things that Peter thinks he thinks. This "Adieu Haiku" must go. It's purposeless and it hasn't even killed anyone recently. 

Tuesday, January 29, 2013

6 comments MMQB Review: Cutting Through the Hype to Get to More Hype Edition

In last week's MMQB, Peter King rejoiced that there was a couple of obvious storylines he could write about regarding the upcoming Super Bowl. He could write about it being Ray Lewis' last game, the HarBowl, and the youthful inexperience (dare we say precociousness?) of Colin Kaepernick. This week is the off-week before the Super Bowl, so it is a really good chance to drill these stories into our skull and talk about the human-interest stories prior to the Super Bowl that really make no difference in the outcome of the game. This week Peter talks about how Alex Smith is sort-of-but-not-really pretending not to be sad he isn't the 49ers starting quarterback (yep, that's a triple negative) and how if we as fans are tired of the Super Bowl hype then we should get over it because the media doesn't plan on quitting. I wouldn't expect the hype to stop simply because the fans don't want to read the hype. I guess it beats watching ESPN and hearing wall-to-wall Tebow coverage for a week. And before you ask, yes, Peter does get a Brett Favre mention into this column.

Ready to get beaten over the head with the Harbaughs, Ray Lewis past and present and a whole lot of players saying a whole lot of nothing? Well, it's Super Bowl week, and the bad news for you is that the one thing I noticed in my few hours in town Sunday before writing this is there's more media than ever.

"Who cares what the football-loving public wants to read and hear about, this is what they are getting. Enjoy your Ray Lewis coverage and like it. You aren't getting the Super Bowl until you listen to and understand every aspect of the Harbaugh brothers early lives. This Super Bowl week isn't about you as the public and what you want to read about. It's about the fact our company is paying for us to come down to New Orleans on vacation and they expect some half-assed stories that every other media outlet is doing as proof we are doing work."

I saw a Mardi Gras-style Dan Patrick/Artie Lange float in NBC-land. I mean, Super Bowl Week has become the United States of Programming.

Hey, it's what we want as a public isn't it? Peter knows no "official" polls have been taken on the amount of Super Bowl coverage the general public wants, but trust him, he knows we want wall-to-wall hype and saturated coverage of the Super Bowl. After all, CBS and other networks are pouring millions into this Super Bowl coverage so it doesn't really matter what the sports-loving public wants at this point.

We've all seen it in the last two months: Alex Smith is the NFL's MVM ... Most Valuable Mensch. Look at his career path: First pick of the 2005 draft. Clearly over-drafted because the 49ers needed a quarterback so desperately.

By the way, earlier this year Peter did an entire feature in MMQB on Alex Smith and how he had become a super-accurate and trustworthy quarterback for the 49ers. I'm not sure if this is a contradiction from now saying he was over-drafted, but I find Peter calling Smith "over-drafted" while defending him earlier this year and using statistical evidence to do so as fairly interesting.

Career rescued by Jim Harbaugh, though he constantly looked over his shoulder in the Harbaugh Era with the arrival of Colin Kaepernick and the specter of Peyton Manning. 

No, Peter. Harbaugh wasn't going to replace Smith with Manning. That was all just a rumor. How many times does Jim Harbaugh have to say this? He never wanted to replace Smith with Peyton Manning and he was simply on the Duke University campus in a disguise watching Peyton Manning workout because he was in the neighborhood, 3000 miles away from the San Francisco 49ers stadium. It's not like he replaced Smith with Kaepernick at the very first available opportunity or anything like that. So of course Harbaugh didn't want to replace Alex Smith with Peyton Manning. He wanted to replace Alex Smith with Colin Kaepernick, but had no interest in replacing Smith with Manning. So again, Kaepernick is a good replacement for Alex Smith, but who the hell would want Peyton Manning instead of Alex Smith?

"It sucks, to put it frankly,'' Smith told me the other day. "Tough pill to swallow."

I can't argue with the result, but I don't like how Smith was replaced. It seems tough to lose your starting quarterback job after you have suffered a concussion, especially when Smith had been performing as well as he had. Though, part of me thinks Smith should feel lucky that Harbaugh even gave him a chance last year and helped to rehabilitate his career. Without Harbaugh supporting him and turning his career around he could be looking for a backup quarterback job next year as opposed to possibly getting a starting quarterback job.

And now we've seen what Colin is capable of. He's a very unique talent, and he's made the most of his opportunity. At the same time, this is exactly how I got my start in college. And I think the biggest thing I can point to in how I've handled this is that I saw how some mature quarterbacks handled it. That started in college, with Brett Elliott.''

Oh yeah, Alex Smith took another quarterback's job in college when that quarterback got injured. So after having six years of trying to nail the starting quarterback job down he got replaced right as he was starting to achieve his potential in the NFL, which is obviously payback for taking another quarterback's job in college. I'm sure Gregg Easterbrook believes the Football Gods are punishing Alex Smith.

Smith explained that, at Utah in 2003, he battled incumbent Elliott for the starting job, lost, but won it when Elliott, in the second game of the season, broke his wrist. And there was no turning back when Smith beat Cal (and Aaron Rodgers), then Colorado State, and then, in a Thursday night TV game, Oregon. Now the job was his.

That's probably why Brett Elliott was so mad and wrote "American Psycho," as a way of getting back at Alex Smith for taking his starting quarterback job. Wait, wrong Brett Ell- sounding name.

"It's a unique situation,'' said Elliott, "and really tough for people to understand. It's the most unique place you can be. The most unique situation in life. You're so invested, being the leader and the guy everybody looks to, your life revolving around this.

Yeah, see here is "the thing"...Alex Smith really wasn't the leader and the guy everybody looked to for the 49ers. He didn't seem to be quite that guy. The 49ers seemed to take to Kaepernick pretty easily which leads me to believe either Jim Harbaugh has good leadership in the 49ers locker room or the 49ers as a team knew Kaepernick was probably going to be the guy at some point. I don't think Alex Smith was the guy everyone looked to in the 49ers locker room, no matter how many VISA commercials he appeared in.

Smith hasn't lost confidence in his ability, saying he is "absolutely sure'' he can be a good quarterback in the league for years. But he says he won't think about the future now. Not this week.

Suuuuuuuuuuuuuuure. Alex Smith isn't thinking about the future during Super Bowl week when he is being asked by dozens of reporters about how it feels to be replaced by Colin Kaepernick and he has the time to think about the starting quarterback in the Super Bowl could conceivably be him if he had not gotten a concussion earlier in the year. If there is a week during the year Alex Smith is at his most bitter and thinking about the future, it is during Super Bowl week when he is being constantly asked about his future and how it feels to be replaced by Kaepernick.

I don't hate the HarBowl aspect of this week. It's great. Will we all be sick of the hype in a few days? Yes. But the historical significance of two brothers meeting in the biggest single game on our sports calendar is great.

See, the reason Peter doesn't hate the HarBowl aspect of the week is because he has to fill space in his columns and talking about the HarBowl is an easy way to do that for him. He doesn't hate the story because the story makes it easier to do his job and people are naturally lazy. That's why Peter would write about Tebow or Brett Favre's non-retirement/retirement a few years ago. Sure it was a story, but it was an easy story to write about and got a strong reaction from readers. Very little effort required, a big impact received. Same thing with the HarBowl. People who love the cutesy stories of these two brothers growing up like the story (and there's nothing wrong with that) and it is an easy story to write.

Then Peter links the stories of other sportswriters and their articles on the Harbaugh brothers in a desperate attempt to fill space so he can respond snidely on Twitter to someone who calls him lazy by citing how many words he writes in MMQB. I will sum up the Harbaugh brother anecdotes for you in a concise manner.

-They are competitive. They went on vacation together and played in the pool together in a competitive fashion.

-They are the same. John is shorter than Jim. John is smarter than Jim. Jim didn't have many friends growing up but was a dreamer, just like John Lennon.

-Jack Harbaugh didn't have a very good team at Western Kentucky, so John and Jim helped him recruit better talent and he magically become a better coach.

-Tom Crean and his occasionally awful butt-cut haircut is brother-in-law to John and Jim.

-Sometimes they hated each other and sometimes they loved each other. They were the first brothers in the history of the universe to have a love-hate relationship, paving the way for other brothers like Cain and Abel to have the same type of relationship.

I am categorically, adamantly opposed to the Jets trading Revis. I believe Woody Johnson will rue the day he trades the best cornerback -- a slightly risky tag, obviously, given that he's coming off October knee surgery -- regardless of how uncomfortable the Jets' salary cap fit is right now. You don't trade great players at vital positions in their prime. You never recoup the value.

Of course Peter has a history of over-hyping cornerbacks. Remember when he thought Nnadmi Asomugha was going to be the greatest free agent grab since Reggie White? It hasn't quite turned out that way for the Eagles. So my response to Peter would be that Revis is also in a good situation with the Jets and if the Jets can get a good enough price for him then they should trade him. The starting cornerbacks in the Super Bowl are Cary Williams, Carlos Rogers, Corey Graham, and Tarrell Brown. Last year I don't recall there being an elite cornerback in the Super Bowl matchup of New England v. New York Giants. A pass rush is more important in my mind than having elite cornerbacks, so if the Jets can get a first round pick or even more for Revis I see why they would trade him. Don't overvalue cornerbacks.

In today's game, quarterback is the most important position, followed in some order by pass rusher, cornerback and left tackle. Given that we've just seen the most passes thrown in any NFL season, I'd say corner or pass rusher is now the second-most important position to fill.

I disagree with this. I think a pass rusher is much more important than a corner. A good pass rusher can get to the cornerback and make even average cornerbacks look good, while a team without a pass rush can make even the best corners look bad. I'm not saying a cornerback isn't valuable, but I would place a pass rusher and a stable offensive line as more important than the cornerback position. A great pass rush is the best defensive weapon a defensive coordinator can have. It's more important than the cornerback position.

Revis will be 28 on opening day next year. Two of the league's best five corners in 2012 were Champ Bailey, 34, and Charles Tillman, 31. There is no reason to suggest age will be an issue with Revis.

I'm not saying Revis won't be valuable, I'm saying he may not be so valuable the Jets should ignore trade offers for him and sign him to (another) contract extension. A team needs competent NFL corners, but turning down very good offers on the table for Revis is short-sighted in my opinion. If the Jets can fix their pass rush it will make the their corners look a lot better and they won't need to tie up money in one cornerback, no matter how good he is.

One: In 2007, when the Jets drafted Revis, they traded their first-, second- and fifth-round picks, 25th, 59th and 164th overall, to Carolina for the 14th pick. Revis was picked 14th. Carolina picked linebacker Jon Beason 25th and center Ryan Kalil 59th. Beason made three Pro Bowls in his first four seasons but has struggled with injuries since; Kalil has started 68 games since, and also has made three Pro Bowl teams. So if you're going to trade Revis, understand you're trading a player who cost you first- and second-round picks to acquire -- and if the Jets had hung onto the second-rounder, they could have turned it into a player at a need position like guard-tackle Marshal Yanda or defensive tackle Brandon Mebane. So it would be folly for the Jets, if they did the deal, to crow about getting first- and second-round picks in return; that's what they traded to get him in the first place.

What? This is idiotic logic. If the Jets believe Revis isn't going to come back strong and the value they would receive in a 1st and 2nd round pick is worth it then they aren't losing anything at all. They were able to secure Revis' services for the prime of his career and then got a good value for him in trade. The Jets didn't really even trade a first and a second round pick for Revis because they got the 14th pick in return for making the trade. So they essentially traded a 2nd round pick and a 5th round pick for the right to move up 11 spots in the draft for Darrelle Revis.

It doesn't work this way though. If the Panthers traded Jon Beason for a 1st round pick would that be folly because they used a first round pick on him? Not at all. They were able to have him on the team for six years and then got their investment in him returned back to them in the form of a first round pick. I think trading Revis for a 1st and 2nd round pick would be something to crow about. If the Redskins traded Robert Griffin in eight years for three first round draft picks would that not be something to crow about since they gave up those first round picks to draft him? Not necessarily. A player's trade value is independent from what they gave up to draft him. Any picks traded to draft the player are a sunk cost, so his trade value would be independent from this cost to originally acquire him. This is especially true if a team (like the Jets) were able to use that player's services for six years, then you would have to factor in how much value they received with that player on the roster for those six years in addition to the draft picks they eventually received in return for trading him.

Two: If the Jets trade Revis, they'll be putting a dagger through coach Rex Ryan's heart. In effect, barring an upset, they'd be firing him nine or 10 months early. They'd be saying to him, We know the most important thing to your defense is the cornerback position, and everything you do on defense is predicated on your corners holding up, but we're trading Revis anyway.

History has shown the Jets overvalued Wilson, who is just a guy. Cromartie is good. Without Revis, it's a pedestrian secondary.

The Jets can go out and try to find better corners if they wanted to. They may not find a guy on the level of Revis, but with a 1st and 2nd round pick they could find a corner in the draft to replace Revis and Wilson. That would improve the secondary.

Now, about the money. Revis has a year left on his contract, provided he doesn't hold out, and he will want to be the highest-paid defensive player in the game. Currently, Chicago defensive end Julius Peppers makes an average of $15.3 million a year; Buffalo pass rusher Mario Williams averages $16 million a year. There is no doubt Revis is better at his position than Peppers or Williams is at theirs -- of course, assuming Revis comes back whole from his surgery.

But is Revis worth the same amount of money as an elite pass rusher? I say no. He's an incredibly good cornerback, but I don't value a cornerback as high as I value a pass rusher. Granted, neither Peppers or Williams may be worth the amount of money they received, but for $16 million per year the Jets could acquire Chris Gamble when/if he is released by Carolina and use a draft pick received in return for Revis to acquire another corner. I'm not advocating the Jets trade Revis, but I also don't think it would be the worst decision in the history of the franchise. Rex Ryan obviously needs more than two quality cornerbacks and trading Revis could help the Jets achieve this goal.

If I were the Jets, I'd tell Revis he needs to show he's back to Revis form in the first, say, half of the season. Then I'd lock him up for five years, at $17 million per, in a deal where the guaranteed money will counter-balance the fact that the Jets are in cap trouble right now.


There is a reason Peter King is not an NFL GM right now. He would have $30-$33 million invested in the cornerback position because you know he would have Revis and Asomugha matched up together on the same team. He was trying to convince us all the Jets would be interested in Asomugha when he was a free agent, so you know if he were a GM he would put Revis and Asomugha together in the secondary. Just look at the cornerbacks for Super Bowl winning teams over the last five years. There are some good ones, but mostly they aren't great corners. Great corners aren't necessarily required to win a Super Bowl.

Andy Reid could be tempted with $17 million of cap room in Kansas City, and GM Trent Baalke in San Francisco could be a player too; the Niners will have significant money available when -- I presume -- they dump Alex Smith before April 1. And there are other teams that might be willing to give a first-round pick plus other value (maybe a third-rounder and a journeyman cornerback as well) for Revis. But remember, the compensation isn't just two picks and a player, or whatever ... it's also wrecking your cap in a flat-cap era for Revis, instead of the significantly more manageable money the fixed-cost high-draft choices now provide.

And yet, Peter says the Jets must back a Brinks truck up to pay Revis after he has proven himself this season...which we all know from Revis' previous holdout may end up turning into Revis not playing next year until he gets a new deal.

But I don't care what they'd get in return, unless someone (other than New England, a team the Jets obviously should do no business with) does something stupid like offer three first-rounders and a decent player. It won't be worth it. In this league, at cornerback, if you've got the best, you grit your teeth and pay the man.

Yeah, just look at the Eagles in regard to how important and crucial quality cornerbacks are. I'm all about Darrelle Revis being the top player at his position, but I don't see paying a cornerback as a "you have to pay this man" position, especially when that corner is coming off knee surgery. I know Peter is just waving off knee surgery as no big deal, but I think there is a risk that Revis could injure his knee again. Peter uses Thomas Davis as an example of a player who came back after three knee surgeries, but on the flip side, he is also an example of a player who suffered multiple knee injuries. A good pass rush can help fix problems in the secondary. He's the best at his position, but I can see why the Jets would trade him and depending on the compensation they would get in return, I can see how it is a good move for them.

Since probably midway through Williams' tenure as defensive coordinator in New Orleans, Payton faulted Williams as a renegade coach run amuck. The league didn't buy that Payton didn't know about the reward program Williams was running with his defensive players and thus suspended him for the season.

Good ol' Sean Payton. Remember prior to the year the Saints won the Super Bowl, when Payton took some of his own money and gave it back to the Saints in order to hire Gregg Williams? Payton was lauded by Peter King and others for making this move to help the team succeed, but once Williams started becoming a renegade, all of a sudden Sean Payton couldn't control this man anymore. He had no idea Williams was running the reward program, but he will still accept congratulations for taking less money to hire Williams as the head coach. Sean Payton has control of his staff and is glad to take responsibility for the team's success until something goes wrong and then Payton pleads he has no control over his staff (yes, I realize I sound a bit like Gregg Easterbrook). It's ridiculous to me and I am not happy to see Sean Payton back.

But you've got to credit Payton for urging local fans to be respectful to Goodell if they see him in New Orleans. That's a class thing to do by a guy who I'm sure is still smarting from his year-long suspension.

Nope, I won't give him credit for this. Considering Payton admitted culpability, to urge Saints fans to not tear Goodell apart limb-by-limb, isn't really a classy thing to do but more of a "let's please remember you are trying to punish the commissioner for rightfully punishing me" thing to do.

I asked former Chiefs GM Scott Pioli, who was in the midst of finalizing the club's preliminary draft board when fired early this month, to examine the record 73 underclass players who declared for the draft and pick the top 10, in his mind. His view of the junior board:

Remember a few weeks ago when Peter claimed his defense of Scott Pioli wasn't entirely based on the fact he liked the guy? Well know that Pioli has been fired, Peter is asking Pioli's opinion on the junior class in MMQB. Learn to separate friendship from your job, Peter. Because we all know the opinion of Pioli on the junior class means a lot. Was Matt Millen not available to comment on the junior class? Okay, maybe Pioli wasn't that bad, but Peter defends his friend in print and then gives him an outlet as a personnel expert in MMQB.

First of all, Jan. 28 is a dangerous time to commit to "top players" in any category, particularly underclassmen. There is still a lot of work to do before we know who and what these players are. Sometimes players look better with less information. NFL rules don't allow teams to officially scout underclassmen during fall campus visits, and scouts can't comment publicly on them either. When scouts go into school visits in the fall, they are not allowed to ask questions about underclassmen when speaking with coaches, trainers and any other support staff.

Thanks for your opinion, Scott. Since this exercise is futile I guess we can all move on without your opinion? Actually, even though the exercise is futile Scott Pioli would like to keep his name out there and his friend Peter King is just trying to help him do this.

Then Pioli lists ten players and his opinion of each player, which is seemingly pointless as Pioli just pointed out. If you are interested in Pioli's list then just look at any mock draft and find the Top 10 juniors mocked in that draft and you will have Pioli's list.

Also, there was no travel note this week. Either Peter learned from berating the cabbie last week or he just didn't travel enough to complain bitterly about the experiences he had interacting with his fellow human beings. Either way, we will try to move on without the weekly travel note.

1. I think I should clarify one thing I learned this week about minority coaches, and it's important: One team in the NFL twice called Stanford coach David Shaw asking him to interview for its head-coaching job. Shaw, who is black, said he wasn't interested in leaving Stanford right now. So there's that.

I don't think there was a need to clarify this. Multiple reports said David Shaw wasn't interested in an NFL job at this point. It was silly for Peter to include him last week as a minority who deserved more consideration for an NFL head coaching job. He isn't interested in the NFL at this point.

2. I think Tony Dungy brought up an interesting point on NBC's Football Night in America show Sunday night about minority coaches. He said he spoke with Steelers chairman Dan Rooney -- author of the Rooney Rule, which mandates that every team with a head coaching opening interview at least one minority candidate -- and Rooney told him teams needed to slow down. Agreed. What's the hurry? Why the race? Pittsburgh had a deliberate process that resulted in the hiring of Mike Tomlin on Jan. 22, 2007, the day after the two conference title games.

There is a race because some NFL teams are going after the same candidate. If the Chiefs wanted to interview Andy Reid as their head coach they couldn't wait until the AFC/NFC championship week to do this because he was going to be hired by the Cardinals or another NFL team at that point. There isn't a race among NFL teams to hire these coaches, it is just if Team A goes hard after a coach that Team B wants badly, then Team B is going to have to move up their deadline to hire a coach. It's hard to interview a head coaching candidate who has already taken another head coaching job. It's fine to sit back and wait if you are fine with potentially missing out on interviewing some of the top candidates for your head coaching position.

Also, what the hell is Dan Rooney chiming in on this issue for? He's hired three coaches in the last four decades. It's not like he has vast experience trying to find a suitable head coaching candidate. This is a credit to how the Steelers run their organization, but if Mike Tomlin was close to interviewing and being hired by another NFL team the day after the divisional round of the playoffs then the Steelers would have to hurry to get their man...or at the very least interview their man.

The last of eight coaches hired this year, Bruce Arians, got the job three days before the championship games. That's an anecdotal story, obviously, but Rooney's point is that teams seem to be sprinting to get a coach named instead of making sure they've interviewed a wide spectrum of candidates.

Remember when there were members of the media who were criticizing the Bears for interviewing a wide spectrum of candidates? It is an anecdotal story, but teams have to sprint to get a head coach because if they don't sprint then the number of quality head coaching candidates that can be interviewed quickly dwindles.

5. I think a lot of parents feel like Barack Obama. "I'm a big football fan, but I have to tell you, if I had a son, I'd have to think long and hard before I let him play football," the president told The New Republic.

I thought it was hilarious this comment gained some sense of national momentum. What is Barack Obama really saying? Absolutely nothing. He is simply saying if he had a son (which he doesn't, so this is all hypothetical), he would have to think hard about letting his son play football (but he didn't say he wouldn't let his son play football). Maybe it is an important message that the President of the United States would have to think before letting his son play football, but Obama doesn't have a son and never said he wouldn't allow this non-existent son to play football. He would have to think about it. "I have to think about it" is parent language for "I don't feel like talking about his right now and will make a decision later depending on how I feel."

A lot of parents feel the same way as Obama, but I just thought it wasn't very newsworthy since his opining on an issue that he won't ever have to confront as a parent. It's all hypothetical and the acknowledgment he would have to think about letting his kid play football reflects what every other parent thinks. It's just Obama's opinion means less since he doesn't have a son and won't ever have to make this decision.

9. I think if Ed Reed becomes a free agent, he ought to last about 48 hours on the street ... 

Dan Rooney wants to know why NFL teams are in such a rush to sign free agents. The Steelers take their time signing free agents, why can't other teams?

I think it is interesting how Peter states Ed Reed will be on the street for 48 hours if he becomes a free agent, but Peter also can't understand why NFL teams are so quick to interview and hire potential head coaches. It's like Peter can't understand there is a limited pool of talent for head coaching jobs, but he understands there is a limited pool of talent for NFL players. There isn't a huge difference in a coach being a free agent and a player becoming a free agent. If a team wants a player/coach, they have to move fast sometimes.

and as I said on NBC Sunday night, my money's on the Patriots and the president of the Ed Reed Fan Club, Massachusetts Chapter, Bill Belichick.

Peter thinks the Patriots are going to sign every pending free agent or draft every draft pick. He repeatedly said he thought the Patriots might draft Tim Tebow, correctly hit on Fred Taylor going to New England, said it wouldn't surprise him if the Patriots tried to sign Julius Peppers when he was a free agent or even sign him when he was under contract with Carolina, and now he has the Patriots signing Ed Reed. This may happen, but add it to the list of guys Peter thinks New England will have interest in.

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

a. I missed The Debt in theaters a couple of years ago. Glad I caught it on DVR over the weekend. Heart-pounding.

I can't wait to read Peter's thoughts on "Zero Dark Thirty" as soon as he gets around to watching it in the year 2016. 

b. What an idiotic softie I am. Got all teary the other night watching the last 30 minutes of Parenthood.

There are some things that are better left alone and not shared with others.

e. So Terry Francona came to the Barnes and Noble in my Manhattan neighborhood the other day to sign copies of the book he and Dan Shaughnessy wrote. I stopped by. Naïve me. I'd never met Francona, and, being a Sox partisan, I wanted to stop by and just say thanks for the two World Series titles. Silly me. Seventy-five minute wait. In Manhattan, no less. Well, thanks in spirit, Terry. And I'm sure I'll enjoy the book.

Whoever could have foreseen that there would be a long wait for Terry Francona to sign a book? It's Manhattan, which is a city where only native New Yorkers live, and there is a long wait for a famous person to sign a book? Peter King, a Boston Red Sox fan who lives in Manhattan is shocked that there are Red Sox fans who live in Manhattan. That should tell you anything you need to know about Peter. He is a Red Sox fan who lives in Manhattan, but he is shocked there are other humans alive who live near him that are also Red Sox fans. Peter seems to have no concept of life outside of his own existence.

f. My knowledge of the NBA could fit in a thimble. But I love watching Rajon Rondo. So a little of me died with the Rondo ACL tear Friday.

"I know very little about the NBA, but here is an opinion on an NBA player I care to share with you."

i. Beernerdness: Grew quite fond of the LA 31 Biere Pale Ale in New Orleans Sunday night. Dry and hoppy -- and brewed in Kiln, Miss., home of you-know-who.

Who, Peter? Who is this home to? Can't go an entire MMQB without mentioning his name or referring to him can you?

The Adieu Haiku

The Niners arrive.
Saw Alex Smith at Drago's.
Hope Staley paid tab.


Hope haiku gets gone.
Irritating more and more.
Just make it go away.

Thursday, January 24, 2013

9 comments Gregg Easterbrook Lies and Deceives His Readers Into Believing He Hasn't Criticized John Harbaugh

Last week's TMQ resulted in a debate in the comments about which sportswriter would be the worst to sit beside on a plane. Really, there is no wrong answer and all of the suggestions sounded horrifying to me. This week the Tuesday Morning Quarterback Challenge returns and I honestly haven't ever heard of this challenge. It turns out it is boring and sucks. Gregg wants his readers to create a visual on any running TMQ theme. As great as this sounds, I think I'll pass. This week Gregg imagines the Harbaugh brother's childhood (because God knows we aren't going to be reading enough about the Harbaughs over the next two weeks), criticizes Chip Kelly, the television show "Fringe" and criticizes about everything or everyone that isn't himself.

One brother was a star quarterback at the University of Michigan, then went on to start at quarterback in the NFL and make the Pro Bowl. The other brother quietly toiled as a defensive back at a mid-major, Miami University, then never taped his ankles for the NFL.

You forgot about the part where this was a great moment for America! You can't forget how great America should feel about the Harbaugh brother's accomplishments.

One entered coaching and had a golden touch, producing quick Orange Bowl and NFL playoff victories. The other toiled with midlevel assistant jobs before finally getting a head-coaching post in 2008, and though doing well, immediately was hammered by the sports press about ending every season with a loss.

What Gregg means is that John Harbaugh was hammered by writers like Gregg Easterbrook for ending every season with a loss. Gregg naturally ignores his part in hammering John Harbaugh for his choices during the NFL season. Gregg is such a dipshit. He is trying to make it sound like "others" were hammering Harbaugh when he is as responsible for hammering Harbaugh as anyone else. From Gregg's December 18th TMQ,

And it wasn't just players who quit. Many coaching staffs quit on Sunday's games, too. Norv Turner, job in jeopardy, nevertheless looked bored on the sideline as his charges were embarrassed at home. Chan Gailey has acted all season as though he was fired last season. John Harbaugh was more concerned with shifting blame than fixing his team.

By firing Cameron now -- rather than this past offseason, when the offensive coordinator position could have turned over in an orderly manner -- Ravens coach John Harbaugh sent the signal that he expects yet another playoff collapse and wants an excuse lined up. At the postgame media event following the playoff collapse Harbaugh/East appears to expect, he can blame Cameron for the team's troubled offense. Firing an assistant coach just before the playoffs isn't a bold move to invigorate the team. It's a desperate move about blame shifting. 

From Gregg Easterbrook's January 1 TMQ, 

John Harbaugh fired offensive coordinator Cam Cameron midseason, trying to make the Ravens' plodding offense his fault: though Baltimore averaged 25 points under Cameron, and has averaged 23 points since. 

Not to mention Gregg says John Harbaugh "toiled with midlevel assistant jobs before finally getting a head-coaching post in 2008," which is odd since Harbaugh was the special teams coordinator for the Philadelphia Eagles from 1998-2007 and had been the special teams coordinator for various colleges since 1988. I'm not sure I would consider that to be a mid-level job, but whatever works out the narrative I guess.

So Gregg Easterbrook didn't even need a Ravens loss to t he Patriots in order to hammer John Harbaugh. He hammered Harbaugh even before the Ravens played a playoff game in anticipation of what he believed was going to be another playoff loss. If Gregg wasn't such a dipshit he could look in the mirror and see that this "sports press" he is talking about consists of himself as well. Of course, Gregg believes he himself can do no wrong and he certainly isn't going to fess up to his criticism of Harbaugh. That would involve being truthful and honest with his TMQ readers and Gregg does everything in his power to lie and deceive those who read TMQ. Gregg changes facts, only includes certain parts of facts and will leave out an important point all in the name of making himself seem right.

Forget players, tactics and strategy. What the world really wants to know is -- did they argue in their PJs over games of electric vibrating football? Blame each other for windows broken with baseballs? Was one grounded more than the other? Did one ever try to steal the other's girl?

Yeah, fuck football, I just want to know how good of friends they were as children. Because I deeply care about the Harbaugh brothers' childhood.

The Harbaugh brothers were born only 15 months apart. Kids close in birth order may be either best of friends or at each other's throats. Which was it with the Harbaugh boys?

Yes, these are the answers we really want to know. Since brothers only have one type of relationship with each other that never fluctuates on a short or long-term basis, were Jim and John best friends or at each other's throats? There is only one answer that is correct.

Get out the old photo albums, Harbaugh clan. It's XII days 'til kickoff of Super Bowl XLVII, scheduled for XI:XIII Eastern on February III. America needs to fill that time with discussion of something other than the debt ceiling.

How about discussing the Super Bowl that has yet to be played? I guess that's no fun to discuss when there are so many other interesting topics like "How does it feel for Ray Lewis to play one last game with the Ravens" or "Did the Harbaugh brothers feud as children?"

In other football news, right about now wouldn't you like to be the person who handles Joe Flacco's endorsement deals?

No, but I would like to be the person who gets to write a weekly column about the NFL and doesn't have to worry about whether what I write is accurate or deceptive in nature. Oh, to be able to write that Julio Jones is a "diva" without any proof, or to accuse other writers of criticizing John Harbaugh and ignoring the fact I myself criticized him as well. If there were absolutely no ramifications for what I wrote or said ESPN.com that would be great, thanks.

Here's an early Super Bowl indicator. The Packers and Giants, the past two Super Bowl champions, were a combined 19-13 during the regular season, followed by a combined 8-0 in the postseason. The Packers had two 1-3 losing streaks leading up to their Super Bowl; the Giants had a four-game losing streak late in the season leading up to their Super Bowl victory. Maybe that makes the Ravens, who had a 1-4 losing streak late this season, the favorite.

So just look for a playoff team that has gone 1-3 or 1-4 during the season and then predict they will go to the Super Bowl. It's that easy! I hope Gregg knows the Texans went 1-3 to end this season and they didn't make the Super Bowl. The Vikings went 1-3 at one point this past season and they didn't make the Super Bowl. So his little statistic probably means very little and isn't the sign a team will make the Super Bowl. Again, this is the type of thing I am talking about when I say Gregg throws out statistics and comments that are misleading. A 1-3 record isn't an early Super Bowl indicator because many teams, including playoff teams can have a 1-3 streak during the year.

In other news, annually at Super Bowl time, TMQ offers a "Challenge." This year's is the first visual "Challenge." Create a visual -- pictures, animation, video -- on any Tuesday Morning Quarterback running theme.

I'm going to create a visual representation of all TMQ's running themes. It will be a picture with all of TMQ's running themes represented in the form of shit coming out of Gregg's mouth. It's a disgusting visual, but also accurately represents my feelings toward Gregg's running themes.

Humor and creativity should be your goal.

So basically the goal is to be like the opposite of Gregg Easterbrook's writing.

Here's the fine print. No profanity.

No fucking way, really? Gregg discourages the use of profanity but encourages the use of beefcake men in any of the visuals presented to him. The hunkier the man, the better.

Also do not use copyrighted music, which YouTube often takes down. Make your own music!

Well there goes using "I Hate Everything about You" as the song behind my visual of TMQ's running themes represented in the form of shit coming out of Gregg's mouth.

Stats of the Title Round No. 5: The first-, second-, third-, fourth-, fifth-, sixth- and seventh-highest-scoring teams in NFL history did not win the Super Bowl.

Remember this next year when Gregg is writing about hyper-offenses that score a ton of points, put up a ton of yardage and are changing the way the NFL is played. Gregg is wrong quite frequently and he seems to block it out. For example, last week he wrote his TMQ about Colin Kaepernick and the 49ers' use of the zone-read option. Gregg described how Jim Harbaugh realized this is an offensive strategy that can be used to win football games. As it turns out, Kaepernick only read one designed-run against the Falcons, nor did the 49ers use too much zone-read option, and the 49ers still won the game.

Stats of the Title Round No. 10: Baltimore and San Francisco, which meet in the season's final contest, are a combined 6-0 in the Super Bowl.

Well, San Francisco is 5-0 and the Ravens have been to one playoff game. So this statistic, while true, is a bit misleading towards Baltimore's record in the Super Bowl.

Atlanta coaches, who all but abandoned the run this season, radioed in 45 passing plays and 21 rushes, though the Falcons led most of the contest. On the fourth-and-4 climactic down, San Francisco was so sure of pass it fielded a nickel with only two linebackers in a short-yardage situation. As Ryan scanned the field pre-snap, he saw only five in the "box," with the closest linebacker well off the ball. Had he simply audibled to a draw, success was likely.

I would love to know how success was "likely" if the Falcons had run the ball here? Gregg has absolutely no proof this statement is true, but he simply says it in the hopes he doesn't have readers with a discerning eye for bullshit. The Falcons had run for 3.5 yards per carry on the day and Michael Turner was injured. I would love for Gregg to explain how success is "likely" when Atlanta had not run the ball well all day. Of course he can't explain this. He just writes things and smugly assumes he is correct.

Instead of rushing against a pass defense, Ryan passed against a pass defense, and the Falcons will watch the Super Bowl on television. Sour.

Running an offense in the NFL isn't this simple. A quarterback can't simply see a "rush defense" and switch to a passing play. Defenses try to disguise their coverage so the quarterback doesn't know exactly what the defense is planning on doing. Gregg thinks the NFL is so simple. If Team A does play X, then Team B runs play Y, but it doesn't work that way.

Only in America! Actually, only in America could the well-off live in hotels and still complain indignantly about having to pay taxes.

Gee, this sounds like something Peter King would do.

Baltimore wanted this game more than New England did -- it was on the Ravens' faces early, and it was really on the Ravens' faces after Tom Brady kicked toward Ed Reed with his spikes.

Great analysis, Gregg! Tell me more! So it was on the face of Tom Brady that he didn't want this game as bad as the Ravens did? What did the body language say? Was Bill Belichick dressed too warmly for the game? Because that definitely affects the outcome of a game too.

Before the Brady kick, New England had 10 points and was in position for a field goal. The Patriots did not score again after the Brady kick. The Baltimore defense was fighting mad from that moment on.

So because Tom Brady, who didn't want this game enough to win the game because if he wanted the game more the Patriots definitely would have won the game, kicked his leg in the air the Ravens won the game and the Patriots lost the game? If it took this kick to get the Ravens fighting mad then doesn't that potentially mean they didn't want the game more than New England when the game began? There I go again, trying to make sense of Gregg's nonsense claims.

When it was fourth-and-1 on the Baltimore 34, Belichick did go for it with a sweet play. Brady turned to the sideline and pounded on his helmet as if to say, "my radio isn't working." As the defense looked at Brady, there was a silent-snap direct snap to Danny Woodhead, who ran for the first down. It was an NFL variant of the "I have the wrong ball" play seen in youth leagues. But when your big play of the night was a youth-league move to gain a couple yards, you didn't want it as much as the other team did.

Someone please make this man stop writing forever. So because the Patriots used a fourth-and-1 play THAT WORKED this showed the Patriots didn't want the game badly enough? Again, the Patriots went for it on fourth down, drew up a specific play to be used in this situation, and because the play succeeded, it is proof the Patriots mailed this game in according to Gregg. So the Patriots lost because they didn't use the correct successful fourth down play during the game. Gregg's bullshit excuses for why teams who go for it on fourth down don't immediately start winning the game are getting weaker and weaker as the years go by.

This game's hidden play came when a Brady completion for a first down was nullified by holding on Nate Solder.

This play was hidden because only Gregg Easterbrook noticed that the holding call which negated a first down made a difference in this game. Jim Nantz and Phil Simms commented on how important this holding call was, but I guess Gregg had his television on mute so he could talk to everyone in the room about how unrealistic "Fringe" is. I wish I were as smart as Gregg believes himself to be. Actually, everyone (Stephen Hawking included) should wish they were as smart as Gregg believes himself to be.

And don't throw baked beans at me for saying this, Boston faithful -- but Belichick won three Super Bowls when he was cheating, and has not won since being caught.

Well, clearly the football gods are punishing them by allowing the Patriots to have great success in the regular season, but not allowing them to win the Super Bowl. What a stiff punishment the football gods are imposing. Rather than the Patriots being a dynasty that has won 5-6 Super Bowls, they are a dynasty that has won 3 Super Bowls and make the playoff every season. If only other NFL teams could be punished in the same way.

Then Notre Dame administrators learned the dead girl was a hoax that might cause bad publicity for the football program, so "the university reacted within hours, hiring an investigative company to look into the matter." Yet when an actual young woman died shortly after saying a Notre Dame football player did something dishonorable, the university dragged its feet. See Henneberger's detailed 2012 account in the National Catholic Reporter.

Henneberger's choice of words last week may not have been fair. She said tears were shed for the fake victim but "none" for the real one. Numerous Chicago Tribune stories (Chicago is the closest big city to South Bend, Ind.) concerned Seeberg's fate, as have stories on ESPN Chicago and in Sports Illustrated.

Fair or not, Gregg has the context of these words all wrong. Henneberger wasn't saying the media at-large didn't shed tears for Seeberg. She was saying Notre Dame as a university did more to cover up and sweep aside the accusations that a Notre Dame player sexually assaulted Seeberg than they did to help her out and treat her as a victim. I don't know whether this point of view is correct or not.   Henneberger wasn't saying the media didn't care about Seeberg, but that Notre Dame was quick to take the side and defend Manti Te'o as a victim, while they didn't have much to say in regard to the victim in a case where a Notre Dame football player was accused of sexual assault. Gregg has the context of this "tears shed" statement all wrong.

The question is not whether a Notre Dame football player should be held accountable for a suicide. Causes of suicide are complex, and often the reasons die with the person. Law generally does not attach blame to those who interact with someone just before a suicide, 

It is not usual for those who have had a harrowing experience to hesitate to make a criminal accusation. But because Seeberg never made one, the answer may never be known.

Now back to accused parties. Notre Dame has been hiding behind FERPA, to say nothing about the man Seeberg accused, though he is an adult, not a minor in need of protection. Regardless of whether Notre Dame is right or wrong to invoke FERPA, the accused man knows who he is. He should speak.

Gregg confuses me. He says the Notre Dame player who allegedly sexually assaulted Seeberg was not responsible for her suicide and there is no way to know if what was alleged to happen did occur or not. So Gregg's solution is this football player who isn't guilty of absolutely anything at this point should come out and talk about the incident? I have no idea what happened in this situation and nobody ever really will know, but why should this football player come out and give his side of the story? Notre Dame isn't hiding behind FERPA. FERPA is there to provide protection to students and allow them privacy. Regardless of whether this Notre Dame football player is an adult now or not, he is protected by FERPA and his identity should not be revealed unless he chooses for it to be.

The Notre Dame football player should identify himself and explain his side. This would be excruciatingly difficult, even if he is blameless. Some will never believe anything he says, and rush to condemn him. But announcing his name and saying what he sees as the truth would be the courageous course.

No, it would be the dumb route. There is a difference in courageous and stupid. It is courageous to report a sexual assault, but it is stupid to give your side of the story regarding a sexual assault crime that was never proven to actually have occurred in some bizarre effort to clear your name when nobody knows your name anyway. If this Notre Dame football player came out and gave his side of the story, he would be asking to make his life significantly more difficult and just by speaking on the topic would give some people the impression he is guilty of the crime alleged. We don't even know this football player's name, so it isn't like his reputation has been smeared.

The late Elizabeth Seeberg said a Notre Dame football player sexually assaulted her. That player should stand tall and answer the departed.

Why? Why should he do this? He very well may be guilty of a crime, but the implication if he came out and defended himself would be that he is guilty of the crime and is simply trying to talk his way out of it. If I accuse Gregg of a crime that is never proven, would he believe he has an obligation to come out and defend himself? I really doubt it. If I accuse him of plagiarism I doubt he would feel the need to defend himself from this charge when my accusation never ends up being proven true. The simple fact is Gregg has different rules for everyone that isn't himself. I doubt Gregg would live up to the standard he is setting for a person to defend himself from a crime that is no longer being alleged, especially when the general public would have no idea Gregg is the one accused of the crime.

Two weeks ago, TMQ noted the succession of quasi-retired time-server types at the helm of the Buffalo Bills and opined, "The Bills need a young, ambitious head coach who wants to make his mark in the sport." Doug Marrone may fit that description.

Mike Mularkey and Gregg Williams also fit this description as the head coach for the Bills, but Gregg ignores the fact his "young, ambitious coach" hypothesis for the Bills has been proven incorrect. Rest assured though, if Marrone succeeds in Buffalo then Gregg will say it is because they finally hired a young, ambitious coach who wants to make his mark on the sport...even though they have chosen this route twice before in the past decade.

Surely Kelly will bring a very fast-paced Blur Offense to the NFL, but bear in mind that the Patriots have already perfected the very-fast-snap.

Except as Gregg already pointed out, teams who have gained scored a lot of points in an NFL season haven't won the Super Bowl. Though Chip Kelly doesn't have to worry about being cursed like Belichick and the Patriots are supposedly cursed. It's the Spygate curse of making the playoffs every year which haunts the Patriots.

Scoring to take a 13-0 lead against Seattle early in its wild-card game, Washington, benefitting from a Seahawks penalty, could have gone for two from the Seattle 1: increasing the lead to 15-0 might have made a difference.

Considering this one point didn't make a difference in this game at all, then increasing the lead to 15-0 could have made no difference at all too. Gregg loves to believe his assumptions are correct when this correct assumption not coincidentally supports the point he is trying to prove.

Last week, Fox's "Fringe" took its final bow. "Fringe" was a fun show that overstayed its welcome, veering from spooky, to inventive and clever, to absurd. Its finale leaves television painfully short on sci-fi.

Television is now painfully short on sci-fi, but Gregg loves to spend column space in TMQ criticizing the lack of realism in science-fiction shows, so perhaps we should all be happy there are fewer science-fiction shows. Gregg spends a lot of time criticizing science-fiction shows, but he never failed to watch every episode of "Fringe" and he is now stating there aren't enough science-fiction shows. Since he seems to hate science-fiction shows so much I don't know why he wants there to be more on television.

Future humans were described as incapable of emotion ("This thing you call love, what is it?" one asked in a line that has appeared in about 10,000 sci-fi movies and shows) but super-intelligent. Yet they made comments like, "The chances of success are 99.994562," which only an idiot would say.

Why would only an idiot say this? First off, this is a science-fiction television show so any character can pretty much say whatever they want and it works because the show isn't supposed to be realistic. Second, I know Gregg hates hyper-specificity, but future humans may be incapable of emotion but be very specific about numbers. Only an idiot would claim to know what a future human would say.

In the finale, the cranky old scientist travels into the future to stop the event that caused emotions to be outlawed and the evil society to form. He succeeds, and the last reel is a happy ending. But if Walter Bishop stopped the development of the future dictatorship, there never would have been any bad guys sent back to attack the present, and thus never any reason for Bishop to travel into the future to stop them.

I've never understood why Gregg insists on elaborating about the plot of television shows he claims aren't realistic. This is an NFL column. Those who don't watch "Fringe" don't give a shit about the show and if Gregg's readers haven't seen the show then he is spoiling it for them, but if they have seen the show he is recapping what they already know. Gregg's terrible NFL second-guessing is only matched by his terrible television show second-guessing. Gregg goes on and on about "Fringe" and really no one cares.

This year's Falcons threw the ball well but were only 29th on the ground. San Francisco opened in a nickel to stop the pass. Early, Atlanta passing was effective. But the Atlanta sideline never seemed to say, "Hey, let's run against that skinny nickel defense."

Great idea! The Falcons should say, "You know all that passing the ball which has been effective and helped us get a 21-0 lead in the game? Let's stop doing that and run the ball for 3.5 yards per carry. They will never expect us to run the ball. Let's do the opposite of what has brought us success so far in this game."

Michael Turner was injured during the game, but the Falcons have gone pass-wacky earlier in this season, including when they were ahead and needed to grind clock the week before against Seattle.

So maybe the reason the Falcons didn't run the ball is their starting running back was injured and they have three Pro Bowl-type players at tight end and wide receiver? Nah, that probably wasn't a factor. 

It's been as if the Falcons' brain trust traded a king's ransom for Julio Jones, and felt the need to prove that putting all its eggs into the aerial game was the right move.

Douglas had beaten Carlos Rogers on a stutter-go, and Rogers was trying to deliberately hold him -- attempting to give up a holding penalty rather than six points. No flag, and Douglas stumbled. Of course had he stayed on his feet and Atlanta won, this column would say what geniuses the Atlanta brain trust was for putting all its eggs in the passing basket.

The fact Gregg recognizes he is inconsistent with his criticism and bases his criticism on the outcome of a play and not whether the idea behind the play was smart infuriates me. Gregg admits his criticism wouldn't stand if the Falcons had been successful and won the game, yet he continues with the criticism even though he knows it lacks merit. 

TMQ tracks Hidden Plays, which are plays that never make highlight reels, but impact game outcomes. Leading 24-21 midway through the third quarter, the Falcons had second-and-8 on their 29. The play call was messed up -- 

Seeing the play clock approach zero, Ryan called timeout. At the endgame, the Niners would reach fourth-and-5 on their own 15 with 54 seconds remaining, Atlanta having just spent its third timeout. San Francisco let the clock go down to 13 seconds before punting, and all Atlanta had left was an attempt to run the hook-and-lateral. Had Ryan not used a timeout in the third quarter, Atlanta could have stopped the clock once more and gotten possession near midfield with about 45 seconds, and Atlanta has staged several less-than-a-minute game-winning drives this season.

Another running theme of TMQ is that Gregg always believes himself to be smarter than he really is. This wasn't a hidden play at all. Joe Buck and Troy Aikman twice referred to this timeout as hurting the Falcons once the game got close in the fourth quarter and I believe Aikman even mentioned the Falcons only having two timeouts as the 49ers started to run the clock down to punt it with 13 seconds left. It wasn't a hidden play, but this timeout called in the third quarter to get the play right really hurt the Falcons at the end of the game. I don't see how Gregg believes this was a hidden play.

San Francisco seemed like it hoped to surprise the hosts with a traditional pro-style pocket-passer offense. This did not work; early in the second quarter Atlanta led 17-0 and had 182 yards of offense compared to minus-2 for San Francisco.

At that point the Squared Sevens switched back to the zone read,

Except for the fact the 49ers didn't really go back to the zone-read since Kaepernick had two rushes on the day. The 49ers called running plays, but they weren't exactly the zone-read running plays that had worked the week before. The 49ers really just started running the ball with Gore and LaMichael James and I don't recall them using much of the zone-read at all. I guess to Gregg any running play with Colin Kaepernick is a zone-read play.

Next Week: The coveted "longest award in sports" -- the Tuesday Morning Quarterback 
Non-Quarterback Non-Running Back NFL MVP.

This is easily my least favorite TMQ of the year, at least if this is the column that will also include the "unwanted" players who played well this year. Gregg will take first round busts on one NFL team that eventually landed on another NFL and then say they were "unwanted" as if he wasn't a person who criticized this player for being a highly-drafted glory boy. Gregg is the worst.

Thursday, July 26, 2012

8 comments Quotes from Movies/TV Shows...Bill Simmons...Sports...You Know the Drill by Now, Part 2

Yesterday, in Part 2 of Bill Simmons "Game of Thrones"-NBA postseason article we learned that David Stern made the right move by blocking the Chris Paul-Lakers trade, even if the end didn't justify the means, even though Bill seemed to have no issue with the end in this situation. So the end didn't justify the means, but Bill had no problem with the means or the end. I'm just confused.

In Part 2 Bill comes up with further theories and keeps poking at Mark Cuban out of spite.

After Neil Olshey left for Portland, in classic Don Sterling fashion, the Clips decided against hiring a new general manager — something that, you know, every other team has —

But why don't all NBA teams have a VP of Common Sense? Who says "no" to this?

Fact: The 2012-13 Clippers are better, on paper, then the 2011-12 Clippers.

Even without hiring a VP of Common Sense? I will remember that Bill Simmons said the 12-13 Clippers were better on paper than the 11-12 Clippers in mid-August when the Clippers jack ticket prices up 25% and Bill writes an entire column describing what a shitty organization the Clippers are and always have been.

One day after Griffin signed his monster extension — $35 million more than Donald Sterling has ever guaranteed anybody — he tore his meniscus during a Team USA practice. Supposedly, he'll be ready for the season. Supposedly. This could only happen to the Clippers.

They're so cursed! Has Bill mentioned how incompetent and cursed the Clippers are yet? Even if they jacked up ticket prices, I would bet Bill has no problem with renewing his Clippers season tickets and keeping them around as his backup NBA team in case the Celtics have a bad season and decides to stop writing fawning columns about them every March. It helps for Bill to pick out a backup team in a certain sport. I feel like it has gotten to the point Bill only follows a certain sport when his favorite team is in contention for a title. If only Bill had picked a backup MLB team he could write articles about baseball while the Red Sox are not in the hunt for a division title. I guess this is what happens when you only have so much knowledge about one team in a given sport, yet sell yourself to the world as "The Sports Guy."

And by the way, pulling Grant Hill from the sanctity of Phoenix's training staff to the tortured Clippers and their underwhelming medical staff is like some sort of sick science experiment. I'm patently terrified about this. Let's just move on before I panic and put my 2012-13 season tickets on eBay.

Because Bill be damned if he is going to cheer for a sports team that doesn't have at least a good chance of making the playoffs.

Important note: I didn't mind the logic behind Minnesota's offer sheet for Batum when you remember this formula: "Cold weather + small market + years of incompetence = you're not signing free agents unless you overpay for them."

Or the formula could be shortened, which I do realize would make Bill Simmons look less creative and smart, into calculating years of incompetence = you're not signing free agents unless you overpay for them.

I think cold weather and a small market do matter, but not nearly as much as an organization that has shown themselves to be incompetent over a long period of time.

Over the next four years, I'd rather pay Batum $46 million than Roy Hibbert $58 million.

Of course Bill would, though this may not make sense for Bill to say this. Using Bill's annual trade value column principles, if the Blazers were offered Batum for Hibbert (even including the contracts in the trade, which I know Bill doesn't even do), do you think the Blazers would accept this trade? I do. I could be wrong, but I would rather pay Hibbert $58 million over paying Batum $46 million and I think most NBA teams would agree.

Batum brings three things to the table that the 2012 Finals proved everyone needs going forward: athleticism, perimeter defense and 3-point shooting.

I feel like Bill using the 2012 NBA Finals as a template for every NBA Finals from here on out. I'm not sure that's entirely accurate. I believe Bill is being influenced too much by the 2012 Finals. So while Batum does bring these things to the table, Hibbert brings the fact he's really tall and doesn't fall over his own shoelaces to the table as well. This important to have in a center. I feel like Hibbert's skill set is more difficult to find than Batum's skill set. Either way, I probably wouldn't pay that much for either player.

I can't beat Miami or Oklahoma City with Hibbert — as the Heat proved in the last three games of their comeback against Indiana, when they basically ran Hibbert off the floor — but Batum would be valuable against either team.

So would the Thunder be able to run Hibbert off the floor with Perkins at center? I'm not so sure. It's not like the Pacers biggest flaw against the Heat or Thunder is Hibbert, so it is unfair to single him out as if he is the reason they lost to the Heat. Not to mention, while Batum would be valuable against these teams, I don't think the Pacers would have beaten the Heat with Batum on their roster. So Batum would fix an issue concerning defending the Heat, but Hibbert put up 11-11-3 (blocks) in the playoffs at the center position. Regardless of how valuable Batum would be, those are valuable statistics from the center position.

Remember the 48 hours after Game 3 of the Miami-Indiana series, when it seemed like the frisky Pacers were on the verge of (a) killing the LeBron/Wade era, and (b) sneaking into the Finals? That was fun.

If only they had Nicholas Batum...then the Pacers could have beaten the Heat. Who cares if Hibbert had a monster Game 3 and averaged 12.3-11.5-2.5 in that series?

Now they're building around three overpaid starters — Danny Granger (two years, $27.1 million), Hibbert (four years, $58 million), George Hill (five years, $40 million) — a bunch of overpaid role players ($21 million next year for David West, Ian Mahinmi, D.J. Augustin and Gerald Green???) and one possible blue-chipper (Paul George, who absolutely stunk in the 2012 playoffs). Does Hallmark make "Congrats on locking down the no. 6 seed for the next few years" cards?

Ah yes, we are using Bill Simmons logic here. Even if the Pacers had beaten the Heat they still would have been building around three overpaid starters and a bunch of overpaid role players. The only difference is they would have beaten the Heat. I guess there would be more positivity around the Heat because they had proven they could beat the Heat, but the Pacers circumstances wouldn't have changed. So they were building around most of these players regardless of whether they beat the Heat or not.

Quick tangent to celebrate Lannister — if you don't watch Thrones, he's the diabolical, perverted, entitled, sarcastic, strategic genius of a little person played by Peter Dinklage who rips off classic line after classic line.. Where does he rank among the greatest TV characters ever? I can't see how he falls out of the top 10. I just can't.

This really isn't that notable for the simple reason that Bill is the one making up this list.

"Where does Steve Smith rank on the list of greatest wide receivers in the history of the NFL? I can't see how he falls out of the Top 20. Of course, I am biased and happen to be the one making the list, so I am essentially using my opinion as the sole reason for the ranking of Smith as one of the top 20 wide receivers of all-time and then am remarking on this as of I am not the one creating the question, the list, and giving the final answer."

If there were sabermetrics for television, his KLPE ("Killer lines per episode") rate would probably be the highest ever. Anyway …

On a related note, if there were sabermetrics for sportswriters, Bill's BMUTPHOPAT (Bullshit made up to prove his own point as true) would be the second-highest among sportswriters. Gregg Easterbrook would easily outpace everyone else. He's the God of BMUTPHOPAT.

The Mavericks tossed aside last year's title defense by letting Tyson Chandler leave and placing their dragon eggs in the 2012 Howard/Williams free agency basket … which, of course, blew up in their faces...They tried to regroup by turning the Jasons (Terry and Kidd), Ian Mahinmi and Brendan Haywood (via the amnesty clause) into a multiyear deal for O.J. Mayo (a valuable regular-season player who's been atrocious in the playoffs)

Good thing the playoffs aren't a small sample size or anything...or else I could call this comment by Bill pretty stupid and lacking meaning.

That leaves them enough 2013 cap flexibility for a Dwight Howard run … you know, assuming he'd want to play with the "Dirk and a Bunch of Solid Dudes" roster they just assembled. Hold on, we're not done.

You mean sort of like the 2011 NBA Title team? The team that had Dirk, a red-hot Jason Terry and a bunch of solid dudes?

If I were a Mavs fan, Jason Kidd's comment after picking the Knicks over the Mavericks would worry me: "I looked at the (Mavericks) roster and I felt I could go quietly and retire, or I felt like I can compete and help a team win. So I saw the pieces of the Knicks, and I thought that I could help them out." Translation: If I'm gonna keep playing, I want to be on a team with a chance to win the title. That's not Dallas. You could almost hear the sound of Dirk's second title window slamming shut.

There's no point in the Mavericks even playing out the 12-13 NBA season. Jason Kidd's comments pretty much assure the Mavericks aren't going to contend for the NBA title this upcoming season. This is the same Jason Kidd who is going to backup Raymond Felton this year by the way. It's not exactly like Kidd is in his prime. This comment smells of a player who got more money to play in New York with the Knicks and is upset the Mavericks didn't make him a better offer. This comment does not sound like a player who is neutrally assessing the Mavericks roster.

Then Bill acknowledges his Twitter bitch-fight with Mark Cuban and says he likes it when he gets criticized on Twitter like that by sports figures. Of course Bill likes it, he gets attention out of it.

What a bummer. Right now, there's a steep drop from Miami to the next five Eastern playoff contenders (Boston, Chicago, New York, Brooklyn and Indiana). It's just a fact.

This is actually Bill's opinion, which contrary to his own belief, does not constitute this as a fact. A widely held popular belief is still not a fact. This is a small truth it seems Bill has momentarily lost grasp of.

In a million years, did you ever think Mayor Carcetti from The Wire would be reincarnated as a calculating, horny whorehouse owner named "Littlefinger" in a raunchy, over-the-top medieval sci-fi drama … and totally crush that role?

Yes, I did think this. Clearly, Bill hasn't seen Aidan Gillian's work over the years. He also crushed his role on "Queer as Folk" and pretty much does a great job in whatever his role requires. He's great at being a douchebag on the small screen mostly and that is what Lord Baelish pretty much is.

Isn't it more fun to binge-watch great TV shows than to watch them once a week? We finished 20 episodes in less than three weeks. I love binge-watching.

Yes, watching television shows immediately, without having to wait 8 months for new episodes, is better than having to watch 10-13 episodes of a show and then wait for a new season to start. More obvious words have rarely been spoken.

Next up for me: Breaking Bad. After that: Justified.

Or as I will call it, "The part where Bill Simmons annoys me by watching my favorite television shows and then commenting on things I watched two years ago."

If you think there isn't going to be a "Breaking Bad" quote column in a year, then you just don't know Bill Simmons. He's going to fall in love with Walter White, all the while pretending he hasn't been four years late to the party.

Just warning you: Picasso does NOT have a lot to work with this season. There's Corey Maggette's Expiring Contract, Jose Calderon's Expiring Contract, maybe Kevin Martin's Expiring Contract … and that's about it. This sucks. I hate the amnesty clause.

So does this mean there will be less of Bill Simmons proposing fake trades followed by him saying, "Who says no?'" to the trade offer that he just proposed and makes sense only on paper and not in real life? If so, I love the amnesty clause.

Then Bill starts (and don't pass out in shock when I write this) defending the Celtics offseason moves. Anytime you can get rid of a Hall of Fame player with world-class conditioning (Ray Allen) to get a guy who prefers to come off the bench (Jason Terry) even though depending on the starter's health he could end up starting AND you are adding Jason Collins, you have to do it.

Putting that contract in the context of a bigger picture, it makes more sense — the Celtics extended their relevance for three years by bringing back their nucleus (Rondo, Pierce, Garnett, Bass and Bradley),

I love it. One good year out of Bass and Bradley and they are now part of a "nucleus" in Boston. Meanwhile Danny Granger, Roy Hibbert, and David West are overpaid.

flipping Allen for Terry (a smart move because Terry thrives off the bench),

So what happens when Avery Bradley can't make it back until at the least mid-December and Terry has to start? Possibly nothing, but Bill acts as if Bradley having more surgery on his shoulder is no big deal.

and adding two rookie bigs (Sullinger and Melo).

Fab Melo is a stiff. Don't let anyone tell you differently. He's Jason Collins without the offensive game of Jason Collins.

We hosted Game 6 of the Eastern Conference finals, with a chance to go to the Finals, and it didn't happen because one of the best 12 or 13 players submitted one of the single most spectacular playoff performances in the history of the league.

Besides, what was the alternative … "creating" cap space to make a run at a free agent who never would have actually signed with us? Come on. If you're close enough to sniff the trophy, you keep going for it. Period.

This is true. Of course there is a line of teams in sport who have thought themselves close enough to sniff the trophy and it turned into them not knowing when their window is shut. I would include the early 90's Celtics in this discussion.

The rest was history. And guess what? I actually loved the Joe Johnson trade for the Nets! Was there a more brilliant chess move this summer? Yeah, he's overpaid to the point that it's almost startling. But what do the Nets care? Other than Wade and Kobe, he's the most reliable 2-guard in basketball.

Unfortunately, Joe Johnson isn't going to be the most reliable 2-guard in basketball for the entirety of his contract. So the Nets essentially made a win-now move for a team that isn't ready to win-now. What could go wrong?

For the three seasons after that, they're paying him a jaw-dropping and unequivocally ludicrous $69 million, nearly twice what he will actually be worth, but guess what? He'll still be a valuable piece for them.

Everybody back up, Bill is predicting the future again. He knows Johnson will still be a valuable piece in three years. Fine, let's pretend Johnson will be a valuable piece, but a $23 million valuable piece? I don't get how the hell the same person who calls Danny Granger overpaid at $13.5 million can defend the Joe Johnson acquisition on the basis of money. Sure, the Nets owner has a ton of money, but Johnson's contract is still terrible. How is it fine for the Nets to overpay by double for Johnson in order to grab the 5th seed in the East, but Danny Granger or Roy Hibbert being overpaid to grab the 5th seed in the East shows just how stupid the Pacers front office is? Bill needs to at least use consistent reasoning. Indiana slightly overpays for players, Bill criticizes them because their owner isn't rich. The Nets overpay for players and this isn't an issue because the Nets owner is rich. It is fine for an owner to overspend in the pursuit of the 5th seed in the East as long as that owner is rich. Apparently a team gets additional wins for an owner's net worth.

If Brooklyn's front office said to him, "We had a chance to improve our team, but the money scared us off," now that would infuriate him.

And then there's this: The Johnson trade single-handedly convinced Deron Williams to spurn Dallas and stay in Brooklyn. (Williams even admitted as much.)

I thought Deron Williams spurned Dallas because Mark Cuban was too busy to be there for Williams' free agent visit because he taping "The Shark Tank?" Isn't that what Bill told us in the first part of this opus? So why criticize Cuban for not being there during Williams' free agency visit if his absence had nothing to do with Williams choosing New Jersey over Dallas?...besides the fact Bill wanted to passively-aggressively rip Cuban of course.

What's funny is that Williams (next five years: $100 million) might be almost as overpaid as Johnson (next four years: $89 million).

But hey, at least the Nets owner is really fucking rich. That counts for something, right?

So now Bill has admitted the Nets (a team who only added Joe Johnson to the core of a team that didn't make the playoffs last year) could have widely overpaid for the players on their team (and this doesn't count Brook Lopez), but he LOVES what they did. The Pacers (a playoff team by the way) slightly overpay some of their nucleus and Bill thinks they suck as an organization, awards them no points and may God have mercy on their soul. If you can figure it out, please tell, because I'm confused.

King did guarantee $61 million to Brook Lopez, a 7-footer who averaged 6.0 rebounds per game — no, really, SIX — during the 2010-11 season, then broke the same foot twice last season. That didn't stop Billy from guaranteeing Lopez a million more than the Saints guaranteed Drew Brees. Throw in the comical Kris Humphries extension (two years, $24 million) and Brooklyn is paying close to $73 million for a 2012-13 starting five that might not be able to defend anyone. Will anyone ever pay more for a less charismatic nucleus? None of them have nicknames, YouTube mixes, distinguishable quirks about their game … it's just five quiet, hardworking professionals who play hard and don't stand out in any real way.

But the owner of the Nets has a ton of money he can spend on non-charismatic, poor on defense, underperforming players. Bill seems to believe this is a good thing.

Ray helped win the 2008 title, played all 48 minutes in one of the best Celtics comebacks ever (Game 4 of the Finals), crossed over Vujacic on the defining play AND made that annoying bastard practically cry!!! His 2009 performance against the Bulls was one for the ages. I still think we would win the title in 2010 if Ron Artest didn't give him a charley horse in Game 3. He played in real pain this spring and gave everything he had for three straight playoff series. He was a true Celtic.

Anyone who uses the term "True X" needs to be immediately be kicked in the crotch and then beheaded. There are other annoying phrases fan bases use to pump up the importance of their team, but this one is right near the top. It's truly annoying.

Following Boston sports for nearly four decades, I can't remember being more confident in anything than Ray Allen with the game in his hands.

Somewhere Larry Bird, if he even gave a shit what Bill Simmons thought of him, is upset and asking Bill to take this back.

Just know that I enjoyed the Ray Allen era. Better than advertised. And we'll always have 2008.

Ray Allen was better than advertised. He was a Hall of Fame shooter who came to Boston and continued to be a Hall of Fame shooter. What else did he do in Boston that he had not done previously in Seattle? I'm sure Bill thinks it was the passionate Boston fans who made Ray Allen better than he knew he could be. I don't see how Ray Allen was better than advertised. He was as-advertised.