3 comments Mark Kriegel Disapproves of Peyton Manning's Choice to Sign with Denver

For be it for me to feel bad for pro athletes, but there are times I become convinced they just can't win no matter what they do. Many bashed LeBron James for taking his talents to South Beach when he got the opportunity for free agency. He wanted to win an NBA Title, so we knocked him for calling in help from other stars in order to win an NBA Title, and then criticized him for not trying to win a title on his own in Cleveland. Then when Peyton Manning becomes a free agent we have writers like Mark Kriegel who criticize him for not going to a team that is closer to winning a Super Bowl. Kriegel even criticizes Manning for wanting to win the Super Bowl himself (as if the NFL isn't a team game), but then he also previously criticized James for teaming up with Wade and Bosh. Manning chose the wrong team by signing with a team Mark Kriegel felt wasn't close enough to winning a Super Bowl, but LeBron James had hubris for signing with a team he felt gave him the best chance to win an NBA Title? Kriegel can't have it both ways. He can't criticize one player for do whatever it took to chase a ring, but criticizing another player for not chasing a ring efficiently enough.

I am sure Rick Reilly is happy, because he wanted Manning to go to the Broncos. Even if Reilly's analysis was a little bit off, I think Denver isn't a terrible place for Manning to be. Manning really didn't have any terrible choices, other than Miami of course. Mark Kriegel disagrees.

At the heart of each NFL franchise is a heartless machine, flawed but merciless, aspiring to completely rational prognostication.

So, so very deep.

Tim Tebow rejuvenated a franchise. The fans loved him. Sure. But they’ll get over it.

Alex Smith got the 49ers further than they had been in 14 years. Yes. So?

Well, Alex Smith got the 49ers further than they had been in 14 years, but a lot of that had to do with the 49ers excellent defense. That's probably part of the reason the 49ers were looking to upgrade at the quarterback position this offseason. This excellent defense is also the reason Mark Kriegel thought Manning should have signed with the 49ers.

Neither flesh nor feeling is supposed to enter the equation. It’s a cost-benefit analysis. The question is not what you’ve done lately. It’s what will you do tomorrow?

This just in: Sports are a performance-based industry. Players are judged and evaluated on whether they perform at a high-level or not. Mount your horse and spread the word to the masses!

In that respect, as a football brain, the mind of Peyton Manning is without equal.

He's like the Albert Einstein of the NFL. Or, as Bill Simmons would say and everyone else would disagree with, Manning is the Malcolm Gladwell of the NFL.

His gift for anticipation, while imperfect, remains superior to any computer program.

Mostly because computer programs aren't often seen playing quarterback in the NFL. Or are they?

(Bengoodfella puts his laptop on a field with a football on top of it and starts running wide receiver routes. Nothing happens.)

Yep, it turns out computer programs aren't very good at anticipation and in terms of playing quarterback in the NFL, computer programs appear to be inferior to humans.

(Though anyone who has played Madden when the computer is in "Fuck you, you aren't winning" mode knows that computer program is unbeatable and superior to even the best NFL quarterback.)

Still, the Broncos? I don’t get it.

Other than they have a very good head coach, have an increasingly good defense, a great offensive line and won a playoff game last year with a running back at quarterback? Yeah, why would a quarterback want to join a team with any of these attributes?

He can rationalize all he wants. But at some level, there’s an element of hubris at work here.

He is an athlete. They run on hubris. Most elite athletes are told from the time they are in junior high how talented they are. A life without hubris is a life they don't recognize.

I like how Mark Kriegel states that LeBron James has hubris for going to Miami and joining up with other stars in order to win an NBA Title, and then states Peyton Manning has hubris for going to an NFL team that Mark Kriegel doesn't see as acceptable or close to winning a Super Bowl. It's all hubris. If a player chooses to become a free agency, there is an element of hubris because that player is saying he can do better away from his former teammates. If a player forgoes free agency and re-signs with his current then there is an element of hubris because he is saying there isn't another NFL team that is closer to winning a title than the one he is currently playing for.

In Mark Kriegel's world, everything has an element of hubris.

"Oh, you just passed me in the left lane. I guess you are saying your car is faster than my car. There is an element of hubris here."

"Look at that family's hubris! They are going to McDonald's while we are eating at Chili's. They think McDonald's tastes exactly like Chili's does, just at a lower price. What a bunch of egotistical assholes."

"What's that Fido? You want to chase a stick? I think you are letting hubris take control. You don't believe I can throw a stick far enough to where you couldn't find it. Go straight to Hell!" (immediately has Fido put to asleep)

It’s spectacular, really, the most admirable sort of arrogance, a Sinatra lyric come to life. Peyton Manning will do it his way, or, in terms of his football mortality, die trying.

I can't believe his ego either. Where does Manning get off CHOOSING where he should play after becoming a free agent? Who does he think he is? One of the best quarterbacks of all-time? Does Manning think he is so great that a team could go from making the playoffs for a decade with him as quarterback to only winning two games because he got injured and isn't that team's quarterback anymore? The ego on this guy, thinking he makes such a huge difference on an NFL team.

Consider LeBron James’ Decision, as it became a touchstone for fans of all sports. Much of what makes James and the Heat so unsympathetic is the idea that the most talented basketball player on the planet still had to stack the deck.

And yet, when a player doesn't stack the deck he gets criticized for not going to the "right" team that could help him win a Super Bowl more quickly. Sometimes the players can't win.

Manning is the opposite of LeBron James.

And yet, Manning gets criticized the exact same way as LeBron James got criticized. If they are opposite, then why is Mark Kriegel's reaction to each player's destination once they reach free agency the same?

At 35, coming off his fourth neck surgery, he believes in himself more than he believes in his personnel. He cares less about the roster than controlling the offense, his offense.

So it is egotistical to believe in yourself?

OK, I don’t presume to know what he’s thinking.

Other than stating you know exactly what Peyton is thinking of course when you say he cares less about the roster than controlling the offense. Other than knowing Peyton's state of mind to the point you know hubris controlled his decision to join the Broncos. Other than those two things, Mark Kriegel won't presume to know anything Manning is thinking.

But I’d kind of like to comprehend what has already become the single most significant personnel move of this or any other NFL season.

He joined a playoff team whose biggest weakness was at the quarterback position. Again, the Broncos made the playoffs, despite inexperience/ineffectiveness at the quarterback position. Manning's presence fixes the biggest issue with the Broncos roster.

The Broncos are run by a Hall of Fame quarterback who knows what it takes for an older quarterback to win a Super Bowl. The head coach for the Broncos has taken his four teams to the playoffs, including two NFC Championship Games, with Jake Delhomme as the best quarterback he has ever coached. The Broncos have a fairly young defense that improved as the season went along and have two tight ends in Dante Rosario and Virgil Green that are athletic pass catching tight ends.

The Tennessee Titans I could understand. Manning is the most Southern guy in sports. He went to school in Knoxville. His wife is from Memphis. He’s got 11-month old twins.

What does having 11-month old twins have to do with being "Southern?" Is there something in the water in Tennessee that causes a higher incidence of twins being born?

A contract for life in Tennessee? That’s basically a piece of the team. Makes sense, no?

It makes sense if you want a contract for life with the Tennessee Titans. If you don't want a contract for life with the Tennessee Titans and want to keep your options open for the future it doesn't make a lot of sense to accept this offer.

By not choosing the Titans, then, it stands to reason that he made a football decision.

Or he chose not to play for the Titans. Simply because we don't understand it doesn't mean it was a bad decision.

Who cares if Manning’s agent, Tom Condon, advised his other big client here, Alex Smith, to turn down a $24 million offer from the 49ers last week?

Not Manning. What Tom Condon advises his other clients really shouldn't be much of Peyton's concern.

What’s more, given his time served, winning is not to be confused with a division title. Winning means winning a Super Bowl. But again, that’s the strange part here.

So it's strange that Mark Kriegel's personal opinion of which teams are close to winning a Super Bowl isn't the same as Peyton Manning's opinion? If Mark Kriegel wants to talk about hubris, how about the hubris of believing your personal opinion should be so widely held to the point you criticize an athlete for making a "wrong" decision because it doesn't agree with your opinion?

Only one team among the finalists for Manning’s services seems Super Bowl ready. That would be San Francisco.

In your opinion. By stating this opinion, Mark Kriegel is ignoring other factors like a team's head coaching situation, the contract he would be offered and how much control he would have over the team's offense. Manning probably liked that he would have full control over the Broncos offense, the Broncos had a defensive-minded coach, and they have a General Manager who understands what an aging quarterback wants to be successful.

Even if the 49ers are more Super Bowl ready, they aren't necessarily a perfect fit for Manning. They have a head coach who is offensive-minded and therefore would meddle in Manning's offense to an extent. Manning probably wouldn't have the control he craves over the 49ers offense. The 49ers also play in the same division as Peyton's brother. This could have had an impact on Manning's decision. Also, the addition of Randy Moss may have been a negative in the 49ers column as opposed to a positive. Manning may not want to play with Randy Moss. We don't know. This is even assuming Manning sees the 49ers as more Super Bowl ready, which is nearly impossible to even know prior in March, when the season doesn't start for nearly six months.

More apparent is Manning’s simpatico with head coach John Fox and team president John Elway. Makes sense.

So there is your answer.

The Broncos have two promising young receivers, Demaryius Thomas and Eric Decker. They have Willis McGahee, coming off a wonderful, if surprising season. He’ll turn 31 in October, ancient for a running back. They have Ryan Clady at left tackle, first-team All Pro — in 2009.

I think the Broncos have an underrated offensive line. Four of the five starting linemen are 25 years old or younger. So the 49ers may have a great offensive line, but the Broncos don't have a bunch of stiffs. As far as McGahee goes, the NFL Draft is coming up, so there is a chance the Broncos will look to upgrade the running back position.

Joe Staley, the Niners’ left tackle, only made the second team, but just last year. At running back, Frank Gore is coming off his fifth 1,000 yard season, but is still only 28.

Nice attempt to deceive your readers. Kriegel mentions McGahee will be 31 in October, but puts Frank Gore's age as 28 years old...despite the fact Gore turns 29 in May 2012. Kriegel projects the age of the Broncos running back who doesn't turn 31 until AFTER the season starts, but doesn't project the age of the 49ers running back who turns 29 BEFORE the season starts. He does this to make it seem like there is a three year gap in their ages as opposed to a 17 month gap. Whatever you have to do in order to prove your point I guess.

Then there’s the receiver position. San Francisco — one score from Super Bowl XLVI — is stocked with talent: Michael Crabtree, tight end Vernon Davis and Randy Moss working on an incentive-based contract.

Randy Moss is a complete question mark. It's very possible Manning doesn't want to work with Moss. I'll give him Crabtree, Davis and even Manningham. Still, Denver has Decker and Thomas, both of whom will probably thrive with Manning throwing them the ball. I still give the edge to the 49ers, but I don't see ability as being a problem for Decker and Thomas. Yes, the 49ers look to have an advantage in the passing game, but in Denver Manning will have full control of the passing game. I'm not sure he would have had that in San Francisco.

(As I mentioned in my Reilly post a few weeks ago, I still like the Cardinals receivers with Manning throwing them the ball as compared to every other team in the running for Manning's services...except the Titans. I like their receiving corp the most with Manning as the quarterback.)

The disparity in talent is more obvious on defense. Denver’s includes Von Miller; Elvis Dumervil, who’s still coming off surgery, and Champ Bailey, who’ll be a 34-year-old cornerback when the season starts.

Dumervil was coming off surgery last year too and he had 9.5 sacks. Von Miller has All-Pro potential and was only a rookie last year. I won't suggest the Broncos defense is on par with the 49ers defense, but I think the Broncos defense improved as the season progressed.

Anyway, in what world does Manning have to justify which team he chooses to play for next year? What's wrong with not choosing to play for the "best" team? I fail to see a situation where Manning has done a disservice to the NFL and to himself by making what he perceives to be the best decision for him and his career.

There are three first team All-Pros — Patrick Willis, Navorro Bowman and Justin Smith — and two more mere Pro-Bowlers, Carlos Rogers and Dashon Goldson.

It’s defense that wins championships, right?

Right, that is how the saying goes. The two teams that met in the Super Bowl last year were ranked 27th and 31st in total yards given up during the 2011 season. Maybe Manning thinks the Broncos defense can win him a Super Bowl.

Unless, perhaps, you’re Peyton Manning. Then you try to win them yourself.

So unlike LeBron James, Peyton Manning should have chosen to team up with the best possible team in order to chase another Super Bowl ring? I'm not a LeBron James defender by any stretch of the imagination. Why should Mark Kriegel criticize Manning for not choosing the team that has the "best" chance to win a Super Bowl when he criticized LeBron for choosing the NBA team that had the "best" chance to win an NBA Title? It's that a bit contradictory.

Peyton Manning went to Denver. We have no idea at this point if it was a bad decision or not. It's where he chose to play and he shouldn't be criticized for not going to the team Mark Kriegel sees as "best" for him to go to.

2 comments Friday Bad Sportswriting Musings

I have bad news for everyone today. You will have to deal with me and my epic drivel today, you don't have any of Fred's more exciting columns to read today. He is probably driving his brand new Camaro around town right now avoiding the cops and running red lights...though the Smokey and the Bandit reference he made yesterday caught me a little off guard because I thought that was just a Southern thing (even though I have never seen any of the movies). Regardless, I have small tidbits of journalistic non-excellence for today which will shock and awe you with their non-excellence.

I am going to try and top Jim Rice taking one look at one start Zack Greinke made and then pronounce him not that impressive, but I will try. Joe Posnanski got the article sent to him by many people, including by Chris W, and it seemed like he was going to take a shot at the article that Fred took on yesterday and it eventually led to this posting, which isn't a tearing apart of the Jim Rice article but a discussion on why statistics are useful and observation is not always as useful. Leave to Joe Posnanski when given the opportunity to rail Jim Rice for his ignorance he uses a calmer and eventually more persuasive tone that gets his point across better. I wish I could teach him a lesson in writing run-on sentences with curse words that eventually negates the original point with it's angry tone, but I think he likes how he writes just fine.

The Jim Rice article even got to NBCSports but Fred didn't get a hat-tip there unfortunately, which I really wouldn't expect him to anyway. This is the only way we are going to be able to defeat the ignorance of baseball guys like Joe Morgan and Jim Rice who use observation to make assumptions and conclusions about today's players, and that way is to use actual facts and reality to point out when they are wrong. Judging players on observation isn't near as useful as guys like Joe Morgan and Jim Rice would have you believe. In this non-official war against observational judging of players articles like Jim Rice are reason #1 I think watching one game a player is in and giving an opinion on that player is journalistic malpractice.

This is your weekly reminder to put your College Football Picks in before noon on Saturday and to update your Fantasy Football rosters.

-Those who read this blog regularly know that I hate lists which list "breakout stars" and "surprise players" for the upcoming or current season because these lists usually involve players who have already broken out or are just late bloomers. This list by Peter King BFF Donnie (Brasco) Banks is no exception.

Nothing against Mark Sanchez, because New York's rookie quarterback has been everything the Jets hoped for and more, but when you go fifth overall in the draft, the bar of expectation is set ridiculously high.

Great, we are starting this column off with a premise I can agree with Donnie Banks on. This is wonderful news...but we know I would never cover this article if our bliss lasted. Unexpected impact players should NOT count players taken in the 1st 3 rounds of the NFL Draft. You draft players that high because you think they can make an impact, so any impact they make should not be a surprise. That's my stance and it seems to be a semi-stance Donnie Banks takes too. Except he doesn't...his cut off for "impact players" is apparently the #5 pick in the draft. Anyone after that point can be a surprise impact player in his opinion.

The more intriguing story through the first two weeks of the NFL's 2009 season is how much early impact teams are getting from the most unlikely of sources.

Cue him now making a list that includes 1st round draft picks...

3. Cincinnati defensive end Antwan Odom

He was drafted in the second round and had 11 sacks over the last two years. Did no one expect him to get 5 sacks this past weekend? Of course not, but he was drafted in the second round and he wasn't exactly a scrub over the last couple seasons for the Tennessee Titans. There is a reason, beyond the fact pass rushers are a premium in the NFL, he got a $20+ million dollar contract this offseason and that reason is he has potential.

4. Oakland safety Michael Huff

He was drafted #7 in the 2006 NFL Draft. He is a surprise impact player because he has sucked the first couple years of his career. I don't see how it should work that he set the bar so low, when he is finally coming close to the expectations of where he was drafted he gets credit for achieving anything.

So if Mark Sanchez was drafted too high to put on this list, how the hell was Huff not drafted too high to be on this list?

Just because he has previously stunk doesn't mean the point when he stops stinking should make him a surprise impact player. He should be excluded from this list just because he stunk his first couple of years in the league....at #7 in the draft you should be an impact player from Year 1 or at least Year 2 and it should be expected.

This year? Completely different story, and a different player so far. Through two games, Huff has been a play-making machine for Oakland, picking off an NFL-leading three passes and recovering a fumble.

Another bone I have to pick is that it has been two whole games since the season started. I know it is fun to make lists based on small sample sizes but couldn't we wait until Week 4 at least to talk about impact players? That way we get a larger sample size of what these impact players have done instead of basing their impact on 12.5% of the season being played.

7. St. Louis middle linebacker James Laurinaitis

He was a 2nd round pick in the 2009 draft. How the hell does the guy who is a 2nd round pick in the 2009 draft and a 3 times All-American in college count as impact player? There was talk he could have been a Top 10 pick before his senior year at Ohio State. Players drafted in the top half of the draft should be impact players, especially when they are drafted by a team like the Rams who frankly are so horrible pretty much anyone could make an impact with that team.

It took about 30 seconds for Laurinaitis to win the starting middle linebacker job in training camp, and the second-round pick from Ohio State has taken charge ever since.

So it is a surprise he is making such an impact because he has pretty much held the position down the entire training camp? I don't think a player who outright wins a position on a team as a rookie in training camp can necessarily be considered a surprise in any fashion. If he didn't win the job and then played well in the regular season, then maybe...but Laurinaitis is still a 2nd round pick and he won the starting middle linebacker job because he is a good player...it's not a surprise he is making an impact.

8. Seattle defensive end Lawrence Jackson

This must be the same Lawrence Jackson who was a first round pick in 2008. Again, as a first round pick in his second year I don't really know how he can count as a surprise impact player.

Jackson is healthy after a preseason shoulder injury, and like a lot of young defensive linemen, is seen as a potential late bloomer whose second season might look nothing like his first (Houston defensive end Mario Williams being a prime example).

So a lot of young defensive lineman improve a lot in their second season? Again, how is Jackson's improvement a surprise then if it was expected that he could improve in his second season? What a good way to sort of undermine the purpose of the article by pointing out second year defensive lineman sometimes have much better years in their second season than their first. I don't give a shit if he didn't make an impact last year (though he did play in every game), he is a first round pick, he should be making an impact on the team.

9. Minnesota outside linebacker Chad Greenway

Hey look! Another first round draft pick "surprise." I feel like this list has been full of these. I thought Don Banks said Mark Sanchez didn't count because he was a first round draft pick...or does he not count because he is Mark Sanchez and we all knew he would be the second coming off Joe Montana, just dreamier? Chad Greenway is an egregious example on this list because he has had two good seasons prior to this one.

This surprise player had a stat line that looks like this:

2007: 105 tackles and 2 INTs

2008: 115 tackles and 5.5 sacks

What a (non) shocking guy to play well this year. Considering he currently has 8 tackles and 2 INTs he is actually behind his usual pace to match those tackles numbers. He was a good linebacker the past two years, so besides being a first round pick, I don't know how he is a surprise impact player this year.

10. New York Jets head coach Rex Ryan

The guy helped run one of the best defenses in the NFL over the past couple of seasons. He was hired as a head coach in the NFL. I am pretty sure the Jets were hoping for this type of impact from him...plus it has only been two games and other teams haven't been able to scout his team's tendencies yet. Give it some time before we crown his ass.

I hate articles like this, they always drive me crazy. You can't have 1st and 2nd round picks be surprise impact players.

-Mark Kriegel who writes a column called "On the Mark" (Get it?????????) is ironically off the mark here. He thinks the Patriots are D-O-N-E. It's over Patriots fans, your dynasty has ended because you haven't blown teams out in 2 straight games.

The Jets beat the Patriots in the second week of the season, and all of a sudden everybody in New York has them penciled in for the Super Bowl.

How absurd! Who would overreact to the first two games of the NFL season enough to say the Jets are going to make the Super Bowl? That's just dumb to assume the Jets are going to be good. Who would be so dumb as to think they can predict a team's entire season based on two games? Certainly not the guy who is writing an article writing off the Patriots after two games into the NFL season, that's who.

Yeah, I know. They have a new coach, a new defense, a new quarterback. They look good. They may even be good. But until further notice, they're the same old Jets, which is to say, prematurely praised.

Using this exact same logic, then we could say the Patriots are being prematurely buried. I can't help but wonder how Mark Kriegel can't think of the inherent contradiction in complaining the Jets are overpraised because they have looked good in two games of this year but usually choke at the end of the year and then saying the Patriots are done because they looked bad in two games of this year, even though they have a recent history of making the playoffs by the end of the year. It has to occur to him this doesn't make sense.

It occurs to me that I knock TMQ for second guessing and nitpicking head coaches and I have an entire blog that sometimes nitpicks sportswriters. Maybe he embraces the contradiction like I do...somehow I believe it just doesn't occur to him.

Rather, what happened Sunday at the Meadowlands says less about the Jets than the Patriots, who were lucky to get by the Buffalo Bills on the first Monday night of the season.

So the Patriots are not that good and the Jets look good because they played the Patriots. The Jets started off the year beating the Houston Texans and last week Houston went to Tennessee and beat the Tennessee Titans. I don't want to say the Jets are going to win the Super Bowl, but they beat the Texans who beat the Titans, who had the best record in the AFC last year. Not that this should mean much, but it at least gives us an indication the Jets may be a good team.

Therefore I would use this information to say the Jets are a good team, so the Patriots lost to a good team and may not be a bad team. We will know more, you know, as more games are actually freaking played this season. Even though no one seems to want to wait for the rest of the year to finish before all conclusions about how good every team is have been made. If it were up to sportswriters all of the postseason accolades like NFC/AFC Offensive/Defensive Rookie of the Year and MVP would be voted on after a couple games into the season and the Super Bowl would happen after Week 4. It sure seems that sportswriters would like this because they love to jump to conclusions very early in the year.

Bill Belichick -- as evidenced by his hilariously rude inability to acknowledge rookie quarterback Mark Sanchez after the game -- will only get meaner.

Being mean has absolutely nothing to do with winning football games. The Patriots do not win football games at an inverse rate with how mean Bill Belichick can be to others.

And barring cataclysmic injuries, his Patriots will get better. But they'll never be what they were.

This is just a dumb premise. "What they once were" is the best team of the 2000's, so they will never be the best team of this decade (I don't like judging things like this by the way) again. Will they be Super Bowl Champs ever again? I think it is a bit early to say no. So the Patriots very well could be what they once were again, which is Super Bowl champs. I hate defending the Patriots since they have broken my heart in the past but the truth is the truth.

Maybe now you know why Belichick ran off the field with a second still on the clock against the Giants in Arizona. I'd say he already understood what's taken everybody else so long to comprehend, that the 2007 Patriots would go down as the best team never to win a Super Bowl.

At that point I don't think Belichick cared if the Patriots were 10-6 during the season. They had made the Super Bowl and lost it in heartbreaking fashion. I would think that would be foremost on his mind at that point.

In fact, Ryan's defense looks to be doing wonders for the Jets and their self-esteem. But it's not as if Brady and the Patriots had never seen it before. But they had not seen the Ryan defense with the personnel the Jets have. In the 12th game of their undefeated regular season, the Patriots went on the road to play the Baltimore Ravens, its defense also coached by Ryan. To that point, it was New England's toughest test of the season, as Brady had to come from behind to win, throwing his 41st touchdown of the season to Jabar Gaffney with 44 seconds left.

Way to completely undermine your original point that the Patriots were on a decline by mentioning the best team the Patriots ever fielded during the regular season had the same problem with the Rex Ryan defense the 2009 Patriots saw on Sunday. If the 18-1 2007 Patriots had trouble with the Rex Ryan defense then it may not be a sign of trouble the 2009 Patriot team lost to a Rex Ryan defense.

Sanchez was 11-for-17 with a touchdown in the second half. Brady threw 24 incompletions, more than the Jets attempted the entire game.

Statistics that are meaningless are fun to quote!

On offense, they're relying on old guys at the skill positions. Sammy Morris is 32. Kevin Faulk is 33. Fred Taylor will be 34 in January. Joey Galloway turns 38 in November. Their best days are behind them.

This may very well be true, but not for the reasons Mark Kriegel just cited and not because they are 1-1 right now and don't look impressive. Apparently Tom Brady doesn't get a period of struggling to get back in the flow of the game as he gets back from having major knee surgery.

Knees that are torn up like that sometimes take 2 whole years to completely recover from, could that be the case here...or are the Patriots really old and on the decline? From a 18-1 season they really nowhere to go but down, but I don't think the evidence for the decline is a bad game against the Jets.

If you want another article that argues poorly that the Patriots, and mostly Tom Brady, are done, check out this article that was linked by Go in the comments yesterday.

Apparently writing off the Patriots is the cool thing to do this week if you are a journalist. Last week the cool thing was to make fun of Jake Delhomme and you haven't seen a whole lot of articles talking about him since he played decently Sunday. The same thing could very happen this week if the Patriots beat the Falcons. Sportswriters tend to shut up once they have been even semi-proven incorrect.

-It disgusts me what is happening with me and my opinion of Gregg Doyel. I actually am starting to believe he is making some good points in 1 out of the 4 articles he writes every week...and this is the one for this week.

I don't want to copy everything I agree with but here is the premise for the article:

Cal was unranked. The Trojans were No. 3. That was the first of six losses to unranked Pac-10 teams the Trojans have suffered under Carroll, a trend that continued Saturday when No. 3 USC lost to Washington. Given how good USC has been under Carroll, that's a staggering number of losses to unranked teams.

Still, Carroll usually gets a pass from critics. He's a great coach. Almost everyone says so.

Meanwhile, at Ohio State, Tressel gets no such free pass. His teams mangle the teams they're supposed to mangle, but the Buckeyes have lost six consecutive games to opponents ranked in the top five, and the country laughs while the locals cry. Just last week, after Tressel's Buckeyes lost to Carroll's top five Trojans, OSU fans dumped their misery into Tressel's e-mail account, causing Tressel to mock them as being "already miserable ... there's no way they're happy."

He is saying that Jim Tressel is a better head coach because he beats the teams he is supposed to beat, while Pete Carroll's teams don't always do that. He thinks Tressel maximizes the talent he has, while Pete Carroll doesn't. This comes awful close to saying Pete Carroll has underachieved at USC (which is what dumbass Mike Lupica said), but it doesn't quite go there. It just recognizes the difference in the talent levels of each roster and what each coach is able to do with that talent level on his roster.

I think the two coaches are so close there is an argument to be made both ways, but it make sense to me to argue Tressel is a better head coach than Pete Carroll using this logic. Read the article and see if you disagree.

It boils down to which characteristic would you rather have in your favorite college football team...would you rather have your favorite team lose to unranked opponents on the road and win the bigger games or lose the bigger games and beat all the teams they are supposed to beat? I think Jim Tressel is getting a lot of crap for losing games when he shouldn't be. I know it is frustrating for OSU fans because OSU plays well and then loses big games. Pete Carroll does get taken off the hook a little bit. Most people have blamed Aaron Corp for the loss to Washington this past weekend and not blamed Carroll for not having his team ready to play.

-There was a college football pollster who ranked the teams in his weekly Top 25 based on what they had actually done so far this year so far. I actually really like that idea. The preseason rankings are plain bull crap because those voting are just guessing at what they think the teams will do this year. It can be hard to rank these teams fairly but if the sportswriters can't think of a better system than the one they have now for preseason rankings, and they don't like the idea of actually voting for teams based on what they actually have done during the college football season, then I think Top 25 voting should start in Week 5 when we actually know how good the teams are. I think the same should go for college basketball. Preseason Top 25 lists are pretty much guesses that don't really serve a purpose other than to let a school's fans brag about how high that school is in the rankings. Why rank teams when you don't know how good they really are?

For example, Ol' Miss finally played a good team last night on the road.........and they lost. How the hell were they the #4 team in the country? If we ranked teams on what they have actually done or at least wait a couple of weeks to rank the teams then I think it would be slightly more fair and teams will be ranked based on their performance and not a sportswriter's perception of how good that team should be before the season.

Maybe Bill Simmons will write something super controversial today...either way, I am catching up with him in my own personal Pick 'Em war with him. He is currently blowing me away.

2 comments Mark Kriegel Explains Why We Play Football Games Instead of Simulate Them

http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/8394768/Wait-till-December-to-believe-in-the-

First off, I have a problem with the title of this column. Wait until December to believe in the Cowboys? The playoffs don't start until January. He spends this entire column warning us against handing them a place in the Super Bowl as the NFC representative, then says wait until the end of the regular season to crown them but they still have to make it all the way through the playoffs? Not good.

Second, if anyone can look at the picture of Tony Romo throwing the ball and look at his face and say he does not look like he is retarded, then you are lying.

Here in a town best known for producing strawberries, lima beans and gangbangers, the Dallas Cowboys are endeavoring to transform training camp into a theme park.

You mean the Cowboys franchise is better at marketing the franchise than actually winning football games? I don't believe it. You don't hear any stories of Cowboy players from the 70's-90's and their off the field activities, so I would never believe they would treat training camp as a side show. I hate the Cowboys, I will reveal this now. If you don't hate the Cowboys, then you hate America. They have not won a playoff game since 1996 and every single one of their fans is a bandwagon fan or a redneck. There I said it.

The makeshift complex boasts enough corporate sponsorships to qualify as a NASCAR site. Cowboys merchandise seems a mandatory purchase for the fans who throng the practice field. They chant and cheer for the quarterback and their new corner.

No other team does this. Little known fact, but in Indianapolis the pensive fans boo and throw glass bottles at Peyton Manning every year and slash the tires on Bob Sanders' car. One year in San Francisco, the fans who showed up for mini camp kidnapped Joe Montana's daughter while she was at day care, until Joe could prove he knew how to throw a complete pass. Ronnie Lott actually lost his little finger when it was bitten off by an angry female fan who showed up at mini camp to specifically attack him.

It's good to be a Cowboy.

Maybe too good.

Read that first sentence. Now read the second sentence with a quizzical look on your face as if something is awry like the Cowboys are actually robots or the fans are clones. Is it possible a team could have such a good time. It is...not...possible, what has Mark Kriegel discovered?

But their popularity is unwarranted when considered in relation to the last decade. For all the talk of a Cowboys renaissance — you've heard it since 2003 when Bill Parcells signed on as coach — this team still hasn't won a playoff game since 1996.

I 110% agree with this statement. Unfortunately it leads to this question for Mark Kriegel. That question is this. Do you think the reason they are so popular may have something to do with sportswriters who write columns about them? Do you think, like I do, it is stupid for you to write an entire article specifically about a team, their Super Bowl chances, and their cast of characters that also happen to be good football players, and then complain you don't know why they are popular? The Dallas Cowboys are famous because they are not a football team, they are traditionally a cast of characters that can also play football. You already know this don't you though Mark.

Maybe you know it too well.

I asked coach Wade Phillips what could be learned from the disappointing way last year's team finished, or rather, did not.

Try not to let your QB and TE go on a vacation the week before the game, the playoffs are often unpredictable, they lost to the eventual Super Bowl champion who defeated an undefeated team which also happens to be the same undefeated team that defeated the Cowboys at home during the season, or the team may not have been as talented as they got credit for?

All of those are acceptable answers. Wade?

"Besides I can't coach very good?"

He don't speak good either.
"Last year was last year and it's over with."
Wade Phillips new philosophy! "Those who don't learn from the past are smart because there is really no reason to learn anything from mistakes you made."
This is what makes Wade the mediocre coach he is.
But he was more intent on emphasizing that the inevitable turnover on a roster meant that this year's team was not last year's.
"We'll have a new team," he said.
I know anytime a team has massive roster turnover, that does nothing but bode well for their immediate ability to win football games. I am kidding of course. I think it is great Wade Phillips thinks that the #1 team in the NFC should have roster turnover because they lost a one game playoff. They should have won the game, and Tony Romo is still a choking piece of shit, but I don't know if going back to the drawing board is what should have been done.
The funny part is that they do not have a new team. Maybe some new players but not quite an entire new team. Do you think Wade Phillips can even name 10 people on the roster currently? Me neither.
What's more, his job depends on an entirely different outcome, something in line with what the Cowboys are, which is to say the most talented team in the conference.
I like how Mark writes an entire column about how the Cowboys need to prove themselves until December and you should not believe in them right now because no games have been played, and then he feels the need to call them the most talented team in the conference. Based on the paper roster and the talent contained within, which he says you should avoid judging the team by. It is a clusterfuck of a point.
"The Giants made 52 yards in the second half," owner Jerry Jones said, "and we still didn't finish it."
This was all Wade Phillips' fault. It had nothing to do with your Sling Blade Quarterback who can't seem to win a playoff game at home.
"If you change four, six, seven plays it's a different game," said the tight end, Jason Witten.
If you change 4-7 plays in every single game that has ever existed in every single sport that has ever existed, then it would be a different game. Except the 2004 Red Sox because any game they played in was destiny. This could perhaps be the worst point ever made in the history of football players, or any sports athlete as the case may be. In a game where there may be 100 overall plays, to change 5% of them that did not go your way would dramatically change the outcome of the game. I know he went to Tennessee but this is still not that hard to figure out.

Leonard Davis, the veteran guard, spoke of not playing "like you already got it made into the playoffs."

Was that the problem, I asked, playing like you already had it made?

"It could have been," he said. "I don't know. I didn't take a survey."
Ladies and gentlemen, I now present to you, the single least informative conversation ever recorded.

"We can't let this man jump off the building because his belt is armed with nuclear explosives!"

"Is that what he is wearing around his waist? I can't see."

"I have no idea. I have not looked up at him yet, it could just be a belt."

Someone should have reminded them that the plaudits were premature, and the team itself, immature.

Boom! The man who just said you were the most talented team in the NFC said you may not be the best team in the NFC, so don't even think about calling yourself that, and called you a little baby. I am sure the maturity level of the team has increased with Pacman Jones on the roster. So no problems there.

Jones told me after practice. "You gotta finish everything. Finish every drill. Finish every practice hard. The place to start is right here." Still, the Cowboys should know: either they finish the season or they finish their coach.

This sounds like a very dramatic way to end the column. It also sounds like Kriegel is going to kill Wade Phillips if the Cowboys do not win the Super Bowl. You be the judge though.

2 comments Bad Ego!

I realize I have not been focusing on hard hitting journalism lately but the national sportswriters have been very sneaky as of late and have not written anything I feel the need to attack. Bill Simmons is taking a 10 week vacation to focus on making himself more money through book sales, Jemele Hill wrote a column I agree with as much as I can agree with a column she writes, and Peter King is talking about kids making out under a blanket, so I can't count on any of them. Fire Joe Morgan even attacked the Dave O'Brien column I had bookmarked.

Good thing Mark Kriegel and his mug shot photo tackle an enormous scientific problem. How to separate one's ego from his body so the ego, which as everyone knows is just some asshole hanging out in your body causing you to be an asshole, can not disrupt the football team. It's kind of like Innerspace except the ego is not quite as annoying as Martin Short.

http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/8363808/On-the-Mark:-Shockey

It was often said that Jeremy Shockey possessed the physical skills of a wide receiver. The problem, at least for the defending Super Bowl champions, is that he had a receiver's ego as well.

Ba-da-boom! Good one Mark! I can do it too!

It is often said Bill possessed the demeanor of a little child. The problem, at least for his neighbors two young children, is that he liked little children too much.

It is often said Mark possessed the writing skills to suck an audience in. The problem, at least for his audience, is that he sucked too.

Maybe that one was a little off. What a way to start a column though. I AM sucked in. If this were Grease and I were in a leather jacket, I would be surrounding Mark right now asking him to "tell me more, tell me more." Later I would get a girl who looks like a man pregnant, dance on a car and get knocked out before a big car race.

The position has become the greatest haven for trash-talkers, self-promoters and prima donnas in all of American sports.

Oh hell yes Mark, that is so true. I have never heard this before though. Is ESPN aware of the penchant for receivers to do this? If not, then need to hire some of them for the pre game shows they have, possibly interview them, and cover these gentlemen in training camp. That would make terrific television.

I suspect you need their kind of ego (though not necessarily the mouth) to catch a pass over the middle of the field, to fear not that blow from the blind side.

Marvin Harrison has it, so you are completely correct. Tony Gonzalez has to be the biggest ego tripping star I have ever heard of. Did you know he saved a man from choking recently? What everyone failed to mention is he was beating the shit out of the guy and just happened to knock the food out after he hit the guy in the chest with a tire iron. What an ego!

Despite the imposing physique and all his biker-chic body art, Shockey wasn't unlike that snot-nosed kid you may recall from your touch football days. He was always open.

Yeah....that snot nosed kid was always....open? I am going to go ahead and stop you there. This analogy does not make sense. Is it an analogy or a reference to Shockey's ego? Sorry but wouldn't you want your players to feel they are open all the time and how is this a bad thing? Would you prefer Gerald Contrarian, the WR who played for the Idaho Lightning in the old PFL (Pacific Football League), who always insisted he was never open. Great guy, always opened the door for his mother, paid his bills on time. He played one year in the PCL because he never was open. From then on, coaches took players on their team who always claimed to be open. Historians still wonder why.

The great egos are tolerated, even celebrated, as long as they're cost-effective. But Shockey, the 14th pick in the 2002 draft, never developed into the franchise player he was forecast to be, that game-breaking receiver who came off the line.

This was all his fault. Back in 2002 the tight end was actually responsible for throwing the ball to himself. Not many people remember that time.

Ok, enough sarcasm. Can we be honest? Eli Manning was not exactly the model QB for his first couple years. Do you think maybe the fact Eli could not get him the football when he was wide open had anything to do with this? This is like blaming a WR for having a bad Quarterback. No, it is blaming the receiver for having a bad QB. Other than a four week period last year, Eli Manning has been bad.

He'd never play a full 16-game season. Most damning, of course, was the fact that the Giants would go on to win the Super Bowl without him.

Injuries were a problem with Shockey as well. I think it was his ego that would break his leg from the inside of his body because it was just so pissed off that he never got the ball.

Just because they won a Super Bowl without him does not mean he sucks and is no reason why he should not still be on the Giants team. This is the same logic people use when they say Alex Rodriguez sucks because the Yankees won 4 World Series with Scott Brosius at third base.

None of this has anything to do with an ego problem.

Four days before that championship game, I asked Eli Manning if he had spoken to Shockey since the team's arrival in Arizona.
"I've not spoken to Jeremy this week," said Manning, before adding none too convincingly, "Uh, so, I'll try to talk to him sometime."

I am going to take a deep breath before I write this because I want to stay calmish. There is a litany of reasons that Eli Manning did not talk to Jeremy Shockey before the Super Bowl. I will list them below for your perusal and you can choose which of these make more sense than the fact Shockey is such an asshole Eli did not want to talk to him.

1. Eli was preparing for the fucking Super Bowl and did not have time to to talk to Jeremy Shockey because this was going to be the biggest game of his entire life against a team that had gone undefeated throughout the entire season, so Manning knew it was going to be a difficult chore and he had to be focused, so he did not have time to answer stupid fucking questions about injured players because that certain injured player was not even playing in the game that Manning was preparing for and Eli was also wondering why the stupid writer would ask this question of him when he was obviously preparing for the most important game of his life in front of the biggest audience that any athlete can ever play in front of.

In fact, Manning — who flourished, unadmonished, in Shockey's absence — hadn't even seen him. Nor did he care to.

He did not care to because he was preparing for the Super Bowl.

What's more, outside of a few reporters who could've used the smart-ass quotes, nobody seemed to miss him.

You know why the reporters did not use the quotes? They were smart enough to realize the quote was given four days prior to the Super Bowl when Manning was probably too focused on the game ahead and the players who were actually playing. Basically this quote was a non story, except to Mark Kriegel, who found it so important he put it in an article after the Giants traded Shockey.

And do you know why nobody missed him? Because the bigger story was the game and the Patriots attempting to go perfect throughout the entire season. Is this a hard issue to understand?

Think about it: The Giants actually decided to quarantine him in a luxury box for the duration of Super Bowl XLII.

Think about it: The luxury box has free food, beer and a great view of a historical game. I would not call it quarantine.

The end came Feb. 3 in that luxury box, where Shockey was forced to watch as Manning earned the Super Bowl MVP.

I am sure everyone in the luxury box was holding Shockey's head forward forcing him to watch his team win the biggest game on a national stage that he could not play in because of an injury that had nothing to do with ego.

A receiver like Shockey can endure broken bones, but never a bruised ego.

Ba-da-boom! The Giants are not better off with Kevin Boss as the starting tight end and you are stupid if you think they are better off.

2 comments Trades I Hope Never Happen and Being Off The Mark

I am not going to link the article because it was not that interesting. Jon Heyman listed five different destinations for Matt Holliday and they all either scared me or made me wonder what the hell he was thinking.

1. Angels. They're a solid team with superior talent, and that's especially true in the rotation, which features perhaps three No. 1s and a No. 2. However, in recent years they've tended to value their prospective talent higher than some others, which has limited their trade chances.

No way this will ever happen. As stated by Heyman, the Angels are too much of wimps to actually make a trade that improves their team and allows them to get out of the first round of the playoffs. There are two teams in MLB I would celebrate for hours if my favorite team got to play them in the first round of the playoffs, the Angels and the Dodgers. Neither team can hit and love to hang on to prospects in lieu of getting a good player in a trade.

Bottom line, the Angels love first round playoff exits, followed by countless, "When is Vlad going to get some help" stories. At least they still have Brandon Wood and Ervin Santana though, so they don't need A Rod or Johan Santana.

2. Mets. A trade that would have sent Holliday, center fielder Willy Taveras and perhaps others to New York for Beltran and star outfield prospect Fernando Martinez appeared to have been floated.

Why the hell would the Rockies trade Holliday, a superior hitter who may want $20 million per year, for Beltran, an above average hitter making $18 million? So by trading Holliday, you have neither saved your team money, lost draft picks, and made your team worse. You have to think before you type Jon.

I love how in his trade situation, the Rockies would throw other players in the trade as well, which is non sensical, even with Fernando Martinez in the deal.

3. Red Sox

God no. This brings up the great point that if Ortiz comes back healthy (meaning under 275 pounds) where the hell would Holliday play? We all love J.D. Drew but do you want him running around in CF pulling hamstrings and tearing muscles? I doubt it. Maybe Jon thinks the Rockies would take Drew, who is making $14 million, back in the deal. Probably.

4. Dodgers

I feel the same way about them as I do the Angels. They don't have the balls. Having the balls would involve trading for a player that will actually make your team better. Maybe the Rockies want Andruw Jones, he is making $18 million.

5. Field

The Yankees are reluctant to trade their prospects

He actually meant to say the other MLB teams are reluctant to trade for the Yankee's prospects after seeing them play. You know, both prospects the Yankees have that are worth a shit.

The Braves would have the prospects, if they'd like to repeat their Mark Teixeira coup from a year ago.

Coup? I would not call trading 5 of your top 25 prospects for a player and then going below .500 with that player a coup. Unless Jon has a different definition of "coup," I am currently using the dictionary version. That trade sucked and continues to suck for the Braves. Basically he thinks the Braves should trade half the farm system for another player that will be a free agent next year.

Good luck trading Holliday Rockies!

http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/8346550/On-the-Mark:-Baseball-needs-its-bad-guy-back

Ironically, Mark Kriegel is off the mark.

To this point, Major League Baseball has seen some nice stories. The rise of Tampa Bay (never mind the recent slump) comes first to mind. Josh Hamilton, sober with 95 RBI at the break, is an inspiration.

I actually don't need stories to make baseball exciting, I just watch the game and that is enough for me.

Has anyone else noticed that sportswriters always talk about the "stories" that are going on in a sport? Sports fans don't need stories to enjoy the sport, only sportswriters do because most of the time they would have nothing to write about otherwise. The point of view they have is that writing about the events in every game is pretty boring, but writing about a controversy, now that is what makes the sport exciting. I don't share that view, so when a sportswriter bitches about no "stories," I don't care.

So admit it. You miss him.
I'm talking about Barry Bonds, of course.

Of course. The one topic any writer can put 1000 words into without even thinking. Barry Bonds is the sportswriter's life preserver in times of need. Mark is reaching for it now. I don't miss Bonds.

For whom else would you stop whatever you were doing to watch at the plate?

I never once stopped to watch one of his at bats, unless the media cut into whatever I was innocently trying to watch to show him. Just like knowing wrestling is fake makes it unwatchable for me, knowing Bonds juiced does not make him exciting for me. It's like bragging you threw for 10,000 yards on a season of Madden on the Rookie level. It takes the joy of his accomplishment away.

And so what if Bonds is going to jail? He's not going to jail this season.

I could care less if he is going to jail and I actually think someone should sign Bonds. Probably the Yankees and I wrote it a few months ago in this here space, but if a team does not want to sign a distraction so you have something to write about, they don't have to.

In reality, fans' affections are fungible. They've long since grown comfortable with the rent-a-player concept. What's more, in this case, Barry Bonds makes baseball sense. Having hit 28 home runs and walked 132 times in a mere 340 at-bats last year, this is one distraction worth the risk.

You are rambling now. His hitting ability was never in question and I don't see how a distraction to a contending team is worth the risk. This column has gone from "I miss Barry Bonds," to I realize he is in trouble with the law, to someone should sign him, and finally, nonsense. Pretty much like every other Barry Bonds column. Also, why write a Bonds column, you know, since he is not an active player and all?

"I can't believe that you wouldn't want him on your team," Torii Hunter said recently. "I know he comes with baggage or whatever, but if I was an owner, I'd like to get Barry."

There is a reason Torii Hunter is not an owner. Actually the Angels could really use Bonds but since they absolutely refuse to make any moves to improve the team, they will not do it.

Now, onto the National League, where the first-place Arizona Diamondbacks are a game under .500 and scoring 3.54 runs a game since June 1. Put Bonds on any team in that lousy division and it's a contender.

The only drawback being he actually has to play left field, which could be a problem considering he has been playing on 85 year old legs for the past five years. He could also pitch. If he did this, then I would pay attention and probably DVR all of his games, Mark Kriegel would have something to write about and the Diamondbacks would score more runs. Everyone would be happy.

Consider that with half a season to go, the Dodgers are three games under .500, but just two games out. What if they were to lose the division by a game or two? Whose fault would it be then? Probably general manager Ned Colletti's. What would he say then? That Bonds wasn't a character guy?

If the Dodgers lose the division by two games, then it will be the player's fault as well. He could also explain to his fans that he was not going to bring the player they threw syringes and beer bottles at for 15 years to the team because he was a cheater. Though fans are not quite as smart as you seem to be Mark, I think they would understand.

I am mocking Kriegel and I am absolutely lost right now, I feel bad for you as the reader. Thanks for hanging in there. I think we have learned that Bonds needs to stay retired or else I will subject us all to critiques of Barry Bonds and the latest news on there being no news. I don't miss Barry Bonds.