3 comments Hey Everyone, Woody Paige Has a Really Terrible Idea!

Woody Paige's work hasn't been seen much on this blog lately. Ever since Tim Tebow was traded by the Broncos to the Jets Woody hasn't been as obviously terrible in his writing. In fact, it's been two years since I posted something written by Woody Paige on this blog. But boy, look at what a run Woody was on there for a while. That's what worshiping Tebow will get you. Today, Woody Paige believes it is a good idea to bring Mike Shanahan back as an aide on the Broncos staff. If this weren't the real world then this would be a great idea. An experienced coach to add to the Broncos staff? Great idea, do it. Unfortunately, this is the real world and the addition of a Super Bowl-winning head coach to the Broncos staff, much less a Super Bowl-winning coach who was still an NFL head coach until last year, much less a Super Bowl-winning coach who won his two Super Bowls with the Broncos is just not a good idea. The last thing John Fox's heart needs is a guy who won two Super Bowls with the very team Fox coaches looking over his shoulder. Terrible idea.

After the disgusting, dissatisfying loss in the Super Bowl, 

The Broncos got their ass-kicked by one of the best defenses of the last 20 years. These things happen. 

John Elway has quickly and decisively proved with the signings of The Big Three the past week that the Broncos are all in again for the 2014 season.

Considering Peyton Manning is in the twilight of his career, it's probably best for the Broncos to go all-in now. It's not like Manning will be around in 3-5 years, so the Broncos want to win a Super Bowl or two now and not wait to build a team. By the way, if the Broncos want to succeed in the short-term, hiring Mike Shanahan will not help accomplish this. 

The best remaining, available free agent who would cost a pittance and serve an invaluable role for the Broncos is ... Mike Shanahan.

Calm down and read on.

No one is upset. It simply doesn't make sense. There's no need to introduce a Super Bowl-winning coach to look over John Fox's shoulder. 

Why not bring back the Mastermind for his fourth cycle in Denver? The previous three times Shanahan was teamed with Elway and the Broncos, they played in five Super Bowls — and won two championships.

Because bringing back Mike Shanahan could easily create a power struggle where John Elway (who obviously respects Shanahan) could be forced to choose between what his current head coach and Mike Shanahan think is best for the team. Plus, Mike Shanahan hasn't shown he can win football games without John Elway as his quarterback, so I'm not even sure he's still "the Mastermind" by any stretch of the imagination. Hiring Shanahan is a needless distraction the Broncos don't need. 

Unlike before, Shanahan shouldn't be the supreme commander, the general manager, the head coach, the offensive coordinator or even the quarterbacks coach.

And of course I must ask why Woody Paige seems to think Mike Shanahan would be perfectly happy having very little authority in the Broncos organization. Does Mike Shanahan seem like the kind of guy who gladly takes a backseat to others? 

But he could be an aide-de-camp for John Fox, an offensive consultant for Adam Gase and Peyton Manning, a running game guru and a confidant for Elway

Shanahan could easily go from being an aide for Fox, a consultant for Gase and Manning and a confidant to Elway to becoming the person who meddles in Fox's decisions, ruins the chemistry Gase/Manning have, and becomes a second respected voice in Elway's ear that clouds organizational decisions. The cost/benefit analysis doesn't work in favor of Shanahan being hired by the Broncos. 

Why not?

Why not? The same reason Woody wouldn't hire his ex-wife as a therapist for him and his current wife. It's the same reason the Colts wouldn't keep Peyton Manning around to tutor Andrew Luck (besides money, of course).

In November 2010, when the Broncos were at the depths of despair, I recommended here that Pat Bowlen hire Elway to be executive VP of football operations. Many inside and outside the operation ridiculed the idea, claiming Elway was a gentleman golfer unqualified for the job.

Woody was also the person who thought Tim Tebow was a super-grand quarterback and the Broncos should do whatever they can to keep him around. Notice how Woody amplifies his hits and doesn't mention his misses. 

Elway came back and produced another Broncos comeback to relevance.

Yes, that was a good call. Elway produced the Broncos comeback to relevance after he dumped the quarterback you were obsessed with, but I guess that's beside the point. 

The Broncos hired Alex Gibbs as an offensive line consultant last season. He had worked for the franchise twice previously and was assistant head coach for years (under Shanahan). Gibbs departed last week.

Oh, well if guys who worked with Shanahan are leaving the Broncos organization then it makes perfect sense for Shanahan to come back and work for the Broncos in an aide capacity and not at all in a coaching capacity, because I'm sure he'll be perfectly fine with that and isn't at all wanting to regain his reputation as a genius head coach. Shanahan wouldn't meddle, not at all. 

When veteran coach Fox was fired by the Carolina Panthers, he contemplated becoming a consigliere to Andy Reid in Philadelphia.

John Fox wasn't fired by Carolina. His contract wasn't renewed. What good are facts when Woody has a point he wants to prove? 

Then, the Denver position was offered. Several other prominent ex-NFL head coaches have become team advisers.

Fox seems like he only contemplated this position with the Eagles for an hour or so, because he was hired by the Broncos on January 13, very shortly after the 2010 season ended. It's fine for ex-NFL head coaches to become team advisors, but these ex-NFL head coaches aren't necessarily advising teams they won Super Bowls with less than a year after their last head coaching job.

The 61-year-old Shanahan has spent 37 seasons as a coach, 29 years in pro football, six as a Broncos assistant and 14 as the head coach (1995-2008). He has three Super Bowls rings (the other as the San Francisco 49ers offensive coordinator) and coached in 10 conference championships (seven with the Broncos).

And this is a man who will be perfectly willing to set aside his ego and provide advice while others make decisions? Yeah, right. 

Sure, he has been fired three times as a head coach — by Oakland, Denver and Washington (on Dec. 30, 2013). Tom Landry and Paul Brown were fired. They're in the Hall of Fame.

They weren't fired three times though. 

Shanahan is out of work, and there are no head coaching jobs left. He's too young to retire, though.

And he probably wouldn't mind having another head coaching job. So the last thing John Fox needs is Mike Shanahan, Denver legend and coach to John Elway, hanging out in the shadows as a replacement for him should the Broncos start to underachieve. Does it really make sense to bring back an old head coach like Shanahan who is still stinging from a power struggle with the Redskins that led to him being fired? Shanahan has always seemed like a Type A guy and he's probably pretty excited to restore his reputation as the Mastermind. Not sure that bodes well for him taking an aide position in the Broncos organization.

Before Manning joined the Broncos, he met with Shanahan, and after he signed, he stayed in Shanahan's home for a few months while the coach was in D.C.

Again, it's not a good idea to bring Mike Shanahan on-board unless the Broncos are really sure he's fine with sitting back, giving advice, and then going about his merry way once his advice is taken/not taken. I'm not sure Shanahan would be capable of doing this. I have been wrong once before, it was many years ago, but it just seems to be bringing in Mike Shanahan in any capacity brings in a person who has relationships with current Broncos players and management that could undermine John Fox. 

In 1984, Dan Reeves lured a 31-year-old Shanahan from Florida to tutor Elway, and the quarterback and the assistant became chess partners, golf buddies and tight friends for the next 15 years. The relationship strained after Elway retired in 1999.

The question is whether Shanahan could take a backseat and simply be an aide. Considering he has requested as much power over football operations as he could get in every head coaching job he has been offered, I have a hard time believing Shanahan could come back to the Broncos in such a passive position. 

When Shanahan reappeared at the stadium last season for the Washington-Denver game, the Broncos gave him a scoreboard-screen salute, and the crowd gave him a warm welcome.

Say the Broncos start next season 1-2 and there is Mike Shanahan waiting in the wings as an aide. He has relationships with Elway and Manning and the Broncos fans love him. Writers like Woody Paige float the idea that Mike Shanahan coach the team for the rest of the season. After all, Shanahan is already with the Broncos organization.

Obviously Elway wouldn't just fire John Fox, but it would be a distraction. For a team trying to win now this isn't an ideal situation to bring in unneeded drama into the organization. Maybe there would be no drama, but the Broncos seem to be doing fine without Mike Shanahan's help and I'm afraid if things go sideways for the Broncos his presence in the organization could serve as a distraction. 

Shanahan certainly did have issues as an overlord micromanager in Denver and Washington, and his teams have struggled since 2005.

He's overbearing or overly-involved in all decisions made and his reputation as a head coach doesn't match the reality of his coaching record since 2005, what could go wrong? 

Mike would help the Broncos — if his role is well-defined, and confined, by Bowlen, Elway and Fox.

Even if his role is well-defined, is this a role Shanahan would be willing to take? This well-defined role could be expanded at some point. Say Fox has another heart attack or temporary medical setback and Shanahan could take on a different role (which would probably involve more micro-managing, his favorite thing). What happens when Fox comes back? Does Woody really think the transition from Del Rio to Fox would have been as smooth last year if Mike Shanahan was a part of the Broncos organization? I doubt it. Sure, Shanahan could request little responsibility and be happy as a passive observer offering advice, but this goes against everything he has shown during his head coaching career. Woody can't conveniently forget this. 

Shanahan could work with Manning and Gase in film study and creative game-planning,

Gase will wish that he had taken the Browns head coaching job when he could because I'm betting Shanahan would run all over Gase in film study and in game-planning. I can't imagine how having a Super Bowl-winning coach and ex-offensive coordinator looking over your shoulder while working with Peyton Manning could be an issue. 

give counsel to Elway and Fox

They don't need counsel. They are doing fine without Shanahan's counsel. In fact, Elway and Fox's counsel is much better than Shanahan's counsel at this point. 

and offer suggestions from upstairs during games and to skill-position players at practices.

Oh yes, "offer suggestions from upstairs during games," which Shanahan will take to mean, "help us coach the Broncos team and maybe call some plays." 

Lest the thought be dismissed readily, Shanahan as coach and de facto GM surrounded Elway with enough free agents and draft choices (16 new starters, including Terrell Davis) to win Super Bowls XXXII and XXXIII.

Woody, that was the past. This is the present. Mike Shanahan hasn't shown himself to be that coach in almost a decade now. Plus, the fact Shanahan did such a great job as de facto GM and coach with the Broncos only serves to underscore my point that having Shanahan around would only undermine Fox/Gase and serve as a distraction. 

He has been there and done that with Elway.

Fox has been there and done that with Elway too. Just last year. 

And Shanahan is a free, literally, agent.

Trust me, he won't be free, and bringing aboard a Super Bowl-winning coach as an aide fresh off a head coaching failure isn't always a good decision. Bringing this Super Bowl-winning coach back to the organization he won his Super Bowls with and knowing this Super Bowl-winning coach has a history of micro-management and participating in power struggles is an even worse idea. It sounds good on paper, but in reality I don't see how this could work unless Mike Shanahan has changed dramatically in the last four months. 

6 comments MMQB Review: The Best Week Ever Edition

Peter King informed us last week that the NFL wants to create a committee to help NFL teams choose or become aware of head coaching candidates. This committee would naturally be led by the great Tony Dungy. Peter also wanted us to know that Josh Freeman has been a real bust with the Vikings and updated us on what Favre was doing in his spare time, because apparently Peter believes there are people who still care about Brett Favre. This week Peter talks about the best week of football yet, how the NFL officials have a really hard job but they are also not very good at that hard job, and Peter is impressed with just how smart he finds himself to be. Oh, and Peter gives out fake awards for some reason. It's Week 14, which isn't the halfway point of the season, the 75% point of the season, nor is the season over. So Peter hands out "81.25% of the Season Awards" for some reason. Potentially for the sake of entertainment, even though it doesn't feel entertaining to me.

The envelopes, please.

Oh, fake awards. Great.

Performance of the Year by a running back: Philadelphia’s LeSean McCoy, who ran through eight inches of snow in the greatest fourth-quarter performance ever by an Eagle back—11 carries, 148 yards, two touchdowns. How does he not slip when everyone else does?

Magic Peter, pure magic. Either that or it is the cleats that he was wearing which allowed him to run in the snow while the other players could not. It also helps that a running back knows where he is running when running in the snow, while the defensive player has to react and this could give him a better chance of slipping when reacting to where the offensive player is running.

Dreads of the Year: DeSean Jackson and the dreadlocked Louis Delmas went crashing into the deep end-zone snow in the fourth quarter in Philly—and Delmas’ black dreads came up snowy white.

Minorities and their hair look so funny in the white snow!

Explosion of the Year: In 14 games, NFL teams scored 88 touchdowns, the most on any day in the 94-year history of the league.

I think half of these touchdowns were given up by Carolina in the second quarter of their game against the Saints on Sunday night.

Injury of the Year: New England all-world tight end Rob Gronkowski, lost with an ACL tear, crippling New England’s chances to win a fourth Super Bowl in the Belichick era.

It's a huge loss, but I have faith the Patriots will recover. When the Patriots are in the Super Bowl again this year Peter is going to marvel at how they did it without Rob Gronkowski, as if the Patriots have never proven themselves capable of winning games without vital pieces of their roster healthy.

Kansas City 45, Washington 10, and it wasn’t that close. I now do not wonder if Shahanan will get a contract extension in Washington. I now wonder if he’ll be working for Snyder at the end of the day.

It's almost like Shanahan's track record without John Elway as his quarterback is his true track record and he isn't worth spending $7 million per year on to hire as the head coach, nor is he the kind of coach you necessarily also want to give final say on personnel matters to. I hope some NFL teams remember this during the offseason when Jon Gruden floats his name out there as a candidate for nearly every open NFL head coaching job.

There is no question Snyder will think the ESPN story was borne of the close relationship between Shanahan and Adam Schefter of ESPN, no matter what Shanahan tells him.

And that would be crazy talk to believe that Adam Schefter, who is a close friend of Shanahan, would have anything to do with the report that Shanahan was about to quit his job as the Redskins head coach that came from Schefter's employer. I'm sure Schefter knew nothing about this report prior to it being reported and he would never use his personal relationship with Mike Shanahan to try and further a work-related agenda that Shanahan would want Schefter to further. Never. I also believe because Jay Glazer has a business relationship with some NFL players that this has absolutely nothing to do with how he reports on NFL news or in any way affects his coverage of these players. I completely believe this too.

Won’t be long before Snyder’s looking for the eighth coach of his stormy tenure.

Well, if Snyder's history of hiring coaches holds up then he will hire either Jon Gruden, Steve Spurrier (I'm kidding about this one...maybe), Nick Saban, Art Briles or another coach with a history of being a good head coach (with the word "history" being the key word for some of these coaches). My money is on him making a run at Jon Gruden if Mike Shanahan gets fired. Snyder should look for a head coach with no experience as a head coach, but with experience in the NFL as a coordinator, yet I'm concerned Snyder will be too concerned about making a splash to do that.

But you can’t write the story of an amazing Sunday without the four calls (and I’m probably missing one or two) that materially affected three games. As you may know, I’m not one to kill the umpire. Or the head linesman. Officials have a tough job, and if you read my three-part opus last week on A Week in the Life of An Officiating Crew, you can see I have respect for the work they do and the difficulty of the job they have.

"I have respect for you and how you do your job. On that note, you suck and have affected the result of three games. Please do us a favor of dying. Please read my three-part series on officiating so you know how much respect I have for you."

Sincerely,
Peter King

And it’s a tribute to the greatness of football Sunday that I’m not going to spend half of this column berating crews in Philadelphia, New England and Cincinnati for indefensible calls that swayed the outcome of all three of those games. I said “swayed,” not “determined.”

It's nearly the same thing. If a player sways the outcome of a game by point-shaving then he has in effect also helped to determine the outcome of the game. I'm not picking nits and I know Peter thinks he is differentiating, but he's not. If the officials swayed the outcome of a game with a bad call, then that's just part of the process in determining the outcome of the game.

The missed Mike Tomlin flag for being on the field during a real live play when two officials were right there is one play. Just one. The Jeff Triplette idiocy on the Sunday night game last week, refusing to call time when two officials had a different down than Triplette, and the game descended into chaos.

The officials are only "swaying" the outcome of a game or two every weekend. That's not so bad. If this happened in baseball Terence Moore would write a column vigorously arguing that these missed calls are good for the game because it involves "the human element."

That’s one too. I saw four Sunday in very big moments.

Officiating mistakes in small moments are no big deal apparently.

1. At Philadelphia, early fourth quarter, Lions up six, Eagles ball, 2nd-and-10 at their 45. A millisecond after Nick Foles releases an incomplete pass, Detroit’s Nick Fairley, not using his head and not hitting above the sternum, plowed into Foles. Ref Ed Hochuli flagged Fairley for roughing the passer, an invented call for which he certainly will be downgraded by the league office. So, instead of the Eagles having a 3rd-and-10 at their 45, they had a 1st-and-10 at the Detroit 40 … and LeSean McCoy promptly romped to a 40-yard touchdown. The made the score Detroit 14, Philadelphia 12.

This along with officials throwing flags and then picking them up. Four straight weeks Carolina has been flagged for something and then had the flag picked up. It's almost like the officials don't know why they made the call and need to discuss why the call was made with the other officials. A penalty either happened or it didn't. I'm fine with officials conferring with each other, but I have seen a lot of thrown flags picked up recently and it's starting to annoy me.

2. On the very next snap in Philadelphia, Foles, attempting a two-point conversion pass, threw it out of bounds. No conversion. But hold on—Detroit’s Ndamukong Suh was flagged by umpire Richard Hall for holding Eagles center Jason Kelce. FOX ran it back three times. A hold never happened. A hold was not close. Hall invented it.

It was snowing pretty heavily out there on the field and the official didn't have the benefit of seeing a replay three times, so I am prone to possibly giving this one a pass. Perhaps I am being too kind.

3. At Foxboro, Cleveland up 26-21, 40 seconds left, Patriots ball at the Browns’ 30-yard line. Tom Brady throws deep down the right sideline for Josh Boyce, into the end zone, with rookie cornerback Leon McFadden in coverage. There is light contact. Incidental contact. The ball falls incomplete. McFadden is flagged for defensive pass interference. The 29-yard penalty puts the ball at the Cleveland 1, and Brady throws the winning touchdown pass to Danny Amendola on the next play. That’s not interference in second-grade flag football, and here, it could well have handed New England a win.

The officials say "you're welcome" to the Patriots in the hopes this serves as a make-up call to cover for the missed call at the end of the Carolina game a few weeks ago.

Where did the flag come from?

From the official standing right there near the end zone who thought he saw pass interference.

Why?

Because he thought he saw pass interference.

How is that call made?

By taking a yellow flag out of his back pocket and throwing it on the field. 

TV color man Steve Tasker agreed. He called the call “horrible” twice and “terrible” once. Couldn’t have said it better.

Really Peter? He used the word "horrible" twice and terrible "once" and you couldn't have said it better? It's not like Tasker was terribly eloquent.

Almost certainly Chapman flicked Green-Ellis’ leg, causing him to fall forward, and his knees and thighs were down before he reached the goal line. Triplette overturned the call. He ruled a touchdown, saying Green-Ellis clearly had not been touched, fell, and could then have reached the ball across the plane because he had not been touched down. We gasped in the room at NBC. Incredible. Jeff Triplette, for the second week in a row, made the kind of decision that makes the American public distrust if not altogether hate the officials who work these games. Triplette made a mockery of finding “indisputable visual evidence.”

At this point, I feel like fans of the NFL have "indisputable visual evidence" that Jeff Triplette is just messing with us now. There's no way he could make such bad calls two weeks in a row without either (a) trying to get fired or (b) just wanting to mess with NFL fans and give the appearance he is incompetent. Triplette is probably laughing and having a beer every Sunday night thinking about the amount of controversy he is capable of starting.

Prater, in fact, was almost late for his record. He had to rush out to the field after Peyton Manning completed a seven-yard throw to Jacob Tamme to get Denver on the outer limits of field-goal range. But he’d never kicked a field goal of 60 or longer in his life. “I really didn’t try many long ones today before the game because it was so cold,” Prater said. “Just figured we probably wouldn’t try any real long ones. I think I kicked one from about 60. That was it. But I hustled out there and we lined it up. When I saw it on the stripe, I knew what it was.”

Meaning: He knew it was for the Holy Grail. Sixty-four yards. The record.

At least Peter isn't being overdramatic about this kick and is managing to keep it all in perspective.

The snapper, a San Diego State kid, Aaron Brewer, is from Fullerton, Calif. The holder, punter Britton Colquitt, who went to Tennessee, is from Knoxville. And Prater is from Estero, Fla. Now, here they were, three warm-blooded guys, trying for history.

They're all so damn precocious!

No one’s ever proven the altitude helps the kicks in Denver, though Sebastian Janikowski, one of four men to hold the previous record, always says he feels he kicks the farthest in Denver. (Janikowski and Jason Elam both kicked their 63-yarders in Denver; the fourth, by David Akers, was in Green Bay.)

Three of the five kicks made from 63 yards or more came in Denver. Either it just happens a lot of times these kicks are made in Denver or there is something about playing at Mile High that helps these longer kicks go through the uprights. I don't know if I believe in a coincidence such as three of the five kicks made from 63 yards out or more came in Denver.

Manning has three games left (at home against San Diego on Thursday night, then at Houston and at Oakland) to break the two passing biggies. He has 45 touchdown passes and 4,522 yards. He needs six touchdown passed to break Tom Brady’s mark of 50 TD throws; he needs 319 passing yards per game to break Drew Brees’ yardage mark of 5,476. Seeing that the 11-2 Broncos are in a race with the 10-3 Pats for home-field edge through the playoffs and would lose a head-to-head tiebreaker, Manning may well have to keep playing in shootouts to keep Denver No. 1. The only way I see Manning missing a fifth MVP is if the struggles a bit down the stretch, loses a couple games and does not breaking one or both of the records. He’s just been too dominant for 13 games, despite his hiccups, to lose it otherwise.

It's always nice to see one of the MVP voters has already anointed Peyton Manning as the recipient of this award with three games left to be played. Why even have a vote? Just give the award to Manning.

The NFL has discussed centralizing the replay system, likely in New York.

For uniformity of calls, mostly. And why not, after seeing the disastrous Jeff Triplette reversal of a likely correct call in Cincinnati? I’d prefer to have the same people looking at all replays. It lessens—though doesn’t eliminate—the chances of a mistake because the foremost authorities on the calls, led by VP of Officiating Dean Blandino, would be overseeing the process from the NFL command center.

I'm not sure how I feel about this. I don't think NFL replay drags and I'm afraid if the calls had to go through a command center it would cause the replay process to drag a bit and hold up the game. Part of the problem with having the same person look at all the replays is if that person is having a bad day or makes a mistake then the officials at the stadium will have to bear the brunt of the fan's anger. Granted, now these officials bear the brunt of fan anger, but at least they have a chance to review the call themselves. It's sort of a "man behind the curtain" feeling that fans will get on replays and I don't know if that's good for the NFL.

Florio asked on Pro Football Talk: “Should the NFL move the instant-replay function out of the stadium?” By early this morning, 83.7 percent of those responding (5,591 of 6,681) said yes. I asked my Twitter followers last night: “Should the NFL centralize replay in one place?” It was 149-9, yes (94.3 percent).

Wow, I am very much in the minority on this. I'm the Terence Moore of NFL replay. I need to go and do some soul-searching now about the direction my life has taken me.

The time of games (3 hours, 11 minutes, 20 seconds, on average, this weekend) has slowly crept up in the last few years, and the league wants to lasso it and bring it back down. The time it takes for replay is getting onerous. We measured the fateful Triplette reversal Sunday, from the time he announced that the Cincinnati rushing play near the goal line was being reviewed to the time he announced the reversal: four minutes, 10 seconds … even though the time a ref can spend under the hood is only one minute. There is no question that process can be streamlined by getting rid of the mechanical procedures at the game site that accompany the replay process.

Oh, so the NFL wants to make games shorter? That's brilliant coming from a league that comes back from commercial break for the kickoff, then takes another commercial break before the first play of the next drive is run. If the NFL really wants to cut into how long NFL games last they would cut down on the number of commercials and players standing around waiting around on the field. Of course commercials create revenue, so the NFL really doesn't want to decrease the time of games if it costs them or their partners money.

I can see streamlining the review process could maybe save two minutes. Two minutes of a 3 hours+ football game can be saved. That's assuming there is a one minute time limit for the official in New York to review the play. There would have to be a time limit for the official in New York to review the play, right?

For the record, times of games in the last six seasons, including this one through Sunday night’s Saints-Panthers game:
 
2013: 3:08:30  
2012: 3:06:32  
2011: 3:05:48  
2010: 3:04:12  
2009: 3:03:42  
2008: 3:02:12

I would be very interested to see if there are more commercial breaks being taken during these times and if moving the kickoff up five yards had an effect on the time of an NFL game.

Then Peter King calls Julian Edelman "a winning player," because apparently he hasn't spit any hyperbole in this column yet and wanted to do so. Edelman is a good receiver, but there are a lot of winning players that have passed through New England and had Tom Brady throwing them the football.

Peter then answers a few questions about officiating in the NFL and what he learned during his three-part series while embedded with the officials.

From MTN335 (Nathan Murphy): ”Did you get a comment (or at least a sense) about the near-constant accusations of cheating/favoritism by NFL Officials?”

As head linesman and New Yorker Wayne Mackie said, it’s laughable to think he’d endanger his job to help his Jets or Giants win; he’d last 10 minutes in the job if that happened, because his supervisors at the league office would drum him out of the game. I can’t say that stuff has never happened. But all of the officials think it’s absurd.

And of course if there was cheating or favoritism by NFL officials I am sure they would come right out and admit. All of the officials think it is absurd to think that they favor one team over another, what else would Peter expect them to say? Does he think they would say, "Well, sometimes if the NFL tells us that they really want to see Team A in the playoffs then a few borderline calls might go that team's way"?

On the heels of the ref series, we’ve got another fun week for you. Some of the stories we have this week:

If you thought Peter King could just allow Brett Favre to fade into retirement and Brett Favre would be willing to quietly fade into retirement, then you certainly don't know these two people. Here's what I'm talking about:

COACH FAVRE. Jenny Vrentas reports from Jackson, Miss., and the Mississippi 6A high school football championship game, where Oak Grove High, with offensive coordinator Brett Favre calling the plays, won the title 14-7 on a frigid night in the state capital.

Favre has been retired for two years now and Peter King won't stop writing about him, as if Peter's readers really give a shit what Favre is up to. Why isn't Peter catching up with other retired NFL players and seeing what they are doing now that they aren't in the NFL anymore? For three reasons, one being that Peter King is absolutely obsessed with Brett Favre. He can't get enough of Favre and isn't willing to stop writing about Favre now that he has his very own website. I guess we are just lucky that it took Peter King five months of having his own site to catch up with Favre.

The second reason is Peter now has his own website so he can tell his writers to write about what he wants them to write about. I'm also surprised Peter didn't have Jenny Vrentas embedded with Favre for the entire Oak Grove High football season.

The third reason being that Brett Favre absolutely craves the spotlight. I don't need to say this since his three offseasons of retiring/unretiring showed just how much Favre loves receiving attention, but other NFL players are content to fade away and coach a team without media attention. Not Favre though. He wants attention and needs everyone to focus on him and what he is doing now. Favre basically became a media whore over the last few years of his playing career and this doesn't seem to have changed much in retirement. 

Vrentas caught up with Favre and asked what he’s learned from the gig this year. “I realize how much of a pain I was [as a player], thinking I knew it all,” Favre said. “Of course, I still think I knew it all. But all the things the coaches said to me, I’ve said the same thing … Don’t force it into coverage, or take what they give you, or keep it simple. All those things have been said to me time and time again, and I say the same things, because they’re true.”

(Peter puts his head in his hand and begins listening intently) "Tell me more Brett. What are your dreams and hopes for this football team or life in general? How is Deanna? Are you guys getting along? If you want, you can come crash with me for a few years. I have an open bedroom and bought a place in New York with a spare bedroom and attached bathroom just for you. Can I touch you?"

PLAYING IN INTENSE PAIN: WHY DO SOME PLAYERS DO IT? Robert Klemko reports from Houston, where running back Ben Tate seems to feel he has no choice but to play with four cracked ribs; he’s going into his free-agent offseason, and he knows he needs to show teams what a special player he is. Sometimes that means playing hurt. What drives these people? Money? Pride? Both? 

Wanting to get paid. Playing injured in exchange for being seen as a team player and hopefully getting paid in free agency. Would you play football with four cracked ribs for a chance to make $20 million over four years with $10 million guaranteed as compared to sitting out the season and being offered a one or two year contract for $4-$8 million with $2-$4 million guaranteed? 

Fine Fifteen

1. Seattle (11-2). A Twitter follower asked me the other day if I liked my preseason Super Bowl champion pick. Yes. Why, yes I do. I’m not much bothered by a cliff-hanging loss to San Francisco in which the Seahawks held their archrivals to 19 points and 318 yards, on the road on a short week when the Niners had vastly more to play for.

This is as opposed to the mere existence of an upcoming game against the Denver Broncos made Peter move the Chiefs out of the #1 spot in his Fine Fifteen. I guess Peter feels more confident about some teams at the #1 spot in the Fine Fifteen than he does others.

3. New Orleans (10-3). So what did we learn Sunday night, other than Marques Colston’s one of the great players of this era who we never talk about? Just this: No one’s winning a playoff game in New Orleans. Just not happening.

This is false. The Saints can be beaten by a good team at home. I can't wait for January when Peter gets incredibly surprised the Saints lost a playoff game at home. I don't know why Peter insists on making concrete statements like this one and then getting surprised when eventually the statement is proven incorrect.

5. Carolina (9-4). It makes no sense to settle for field goals in the Superdome. That’s the lesson offensive coordinator Mike Shula should take out of this game for 2014 and beyond (and perhaps for a January game).

Another lesson Mike Shula should learn and take out of this game is that he needs to quit immediately and have the job be given to someone who is actually a competent NFL offensive coordinator. He's been over his head for most of the year and it really shows against good teams. He's turned Cam Newton into a dink-and-dunk quarterback.

10. Indianapolis (8-5). Well, at least the Kenyan rugby player, Daniel Adongo, played.

Peter thinks the Colts could really struggle in the playoffs now that they lost a game. Next week he will be confident in the Colts again when they beat Houston. The Colts last three games are against the Chiefs, Texans, and Jaguars. Must be nice.

“It’s not the right time or place to talk about my relationship with Dan Snyder. Or it’s not the right time or place to talk about something that happened a year ago.”

—Washington coach Mike Shanahan, declining after an embarrassing loss to Kansas City to talk about an explosive story from ESPN Sunday morning that claimed he almost quit at the end of the last season, in part because of the ultra-close relationship between Snyder and quarterback Robert Griffin III.

This is some high school stuff here. Mike Shanahan wanted to quit because Snyder and Griffin were close to each other? This means if these two are close that possibly Snyder would favor Griffin if there was ever a disagreement between Griffin and Shanahan. Also, by saying "something that happened a year ago" Shanahan is basically admitting he was thinking about quitting at the end of last season.

“I’m gonna be honest with you: You look like a succulent baby lamb.”

—Will Ferrell, playing Ron Burgundy, interviewing the real Peyton Manning via satellite on ESPN.
 
Peyton Manning has been interviewed by a lot of people in his 16-season NFL career, and a lot of observations have flowed back and forth in those interviews. But I feel quite sure no one has ever told him he looked like an edible infant sheep.

Peter has called Peyton Manning "precocious" on several occasions though, which isn't any less weird except that Peter is being serious while Will Ferrell is not being serious.

For the strangest coaching career in the last 30 years, I nominate Wade Phillips.
 
Notable notes on his résumé:
 
• He has been the head coach of six franchises in 28 years.
• He holds the NFL record (unofficial) by being the interim coach of three teams, including the interim coach of the Texans after being the short-term replacement for Gary Kubiak for three games while Kubiak recovered from a mini-stroke. That almost should count twice.

• I once saw him at a U2 concert.

One of these notes on Phillips' resume does not fit in with the others. Phillips also has one less playoff victory than Jeff Fisher does and has as many winning seasons as Jeff Fisher does despite having coached in 9 fewer full seasons than Jeff Fisher has. Not that I take every opportunity to show what an overrated coach Jeff Fisher is of course.

Mr. Starwood Preferred Member Travel Note of the Week

Or as it will be called this week, the note where Peter tells us all how smart he finds himself to be.

“Bet he was here for a speech,” I said. “Google ‘Chris Matthews, University of Louisville, speech.’ ”

What's with Peter King always telling people to "Google" something? He does this in MMQB as well. His answer for any question has now become "Go Google it."

Wall went to work. “Yup,” he said. “Spoke at the University of Louisville Author’s Forum.”

I bet he spoke about John F. Kennedy! Peter rues the day he missed this speech.

Even I sometimes surprise myself with my consistent strokes of genius!

I would take this for self-deprecation if I didn't know it wasn't Peter being self-deprecating. He goes out of the way to tell us this story, so clearly he is somewhat impressed with himself.

1. I think this is what I liked about Week 14:

c. Another 397 yards and four touchdowns for Peyton at home on Sunday. Temperature at kickoff: 14°

Well that completely disproves the larger sample size showing Peyton Manning struggles in colder weather. Case closed.

2. I think this is what I didn’t like about Week 14:

a. Come on, Washington special teams. Look at the extra point after the late-second-quarter Kansas City touchdown. Three Washington players, as Ryan Succop kicked, stood and made no attempt to rush the kick, or do anything. Nice effort.

When the players give up and stop giving an effort...that's probably the point where a change needs to be made. There's a difference in a team simply not playing well and being out-coached and when a team quits on their coach and quits giving an effort.

c. The knee injuries. Rob Gronkowski and Tyrann Mathieu both went down with apparent ACL tears. Hate to see that happen to anyone, let alone two of the league’s brightest young stars.

Jonathan Stewart went out with a torn MCL. Unfortunately, that's only worth $10,000 in the Saints locker room. I think it's $25,000 for a torn ACL, if I'm not wrong.

f. What a mess in Washington. Just an embarrassing loss to the Chiefs at home.

g. RGIII’s interception to Derrick Johnson. Telegraphed all the way.

Can you tell that Peter didn't like the Redskins performance on Sunday? Has he made it clear enough for you?

7. I think there’s more to come on the Mike Tomlin sanction, which means I erred when I reported Friday on NBC Sports Network’s Pro Football Talk that the penalty for the Steelers will likely end with the $100,000 fine from the league. It won’t, and I apologize for the mistake. The league will either take a late-round pick from the Steelers (which, if the team gets a sixth- or seventh-round compensatory pick, would mean in essence that the team won’t get compensated for losing a mid-range free agent next spring) or diminish the value of a pick or picks by lowering one or more of them.

In my opinion this is absolutely ridiculous. I think a fine is in order but the NFL is killing an ant with shotgun by taking away a draft pick or diminishing the value of a draft pick. It's just an overreaction. Tomlin was in the wrong, but taking away draft picks seems kind of silly to me.

8. I think the story of the weekend belongs to Dan Graziano of ESPN.com. He alleges Mike Shanahan almost left Washington at the end of last season because he didn’t like the favoritism owner Dan Snyder was showing Robert Griffin III. Graziano’s good at his job, and it bears watching very closely whether Shanahan would even entertain a contract extension, or whether Snyder would even entertain offering him one at the end of the season.

Really? Why would the Redskins offer Mike Shanahan a contract extension with the current state of the team and why would Mike Shanahan accept a contract extension to be in a situation he simply doesn't like?

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

d. Re Jacoby Ellsbury signing with the Yankees and Jarrod Saltalamacchia signing with the Marlins: Two hard-working, tremendous guys to root for over the years, professional to the core. They’ll be missed, at least by me.

Not for how much money Ellsbury received will he be missed by too many Red Sox fans. He's a great player, but that's a lot of money for him in my opinion.

f. Robinson Cano’s going to regret that deal. He’s just not a face-of-the-franchise type, and now the Mariners are going to demand it.

Robinson Cano isn't going to regret shit. He has $241 million reasons to not regret that contract. The Mariners may demand he be a face-of-the-franchise type player and Cano many never be that, but he just made $241 million over the next 10 years. I would say any criticism he gets for not being the face-of-the-franchise will be blunted by getting paid in free agency.

i. Coffeenerdness: It really shouldn’t happen, Starbucks, that I have to nerdily tell a new barista that the shots in a macchiato get put in at the end of the drink, on top of the foam. But that happened this week, at a midtown shop. The barista looked at me and said, “Really?”

I guess Peter's week of supporting the new small coffee shop in New York has ended and he is now back to going to Starbucks. I can't help but wonder if this barista was being sarcastic to Peter when he said "Really?" I'm thinking he might have been trying to be sarcastic in response to Peter telling him how to do his job.

l. The more I look at Pope Francis, the more he looks like Chance the gardener.

One week after rededicating himself to going to church because this Pope said he wishes we as a people worried as much about the homeless man on the corner as we do what the stock market will do, Peter is comparing the Pope to a man who can walk on water in the movies. Interesting. What has made Peter such a fan of the current Pope when I don't recall him mentioning the previous two Popes once in his MMQB during their tenure as Pope?

The Adieu Haiku
Frank Gore. What a back.
Appreciate him now, please.
Soon, he’ll have to go.

Are there people who give Peter positive feedback on these haikus? If there are, I would love to hear why. These haikus aren't even interesting. 

4 comments Gregg Easterbrook Declares the Zone Read Dead Again

I figured TMQ for this week would be about the demise of the zone read or a reprisal of the "Peyton Paradox." It is about the decline of the read option. Gregg is great at overreacting to what happened during the past week in the NFL, so because the Redskins continue to struggle and Colin Kaepernick didn't run for 300 yards Gregg has decided teams are moving back towards wanting a more traditional quarterback. What Gregg doesn't realize is teams never went away from wanting a traditional quarterback. Teams just used the zone read as a part of the offense to throw the defense off-balance. A quarterback will always have to throw the ball well and I can't see this changing anytime soon. Gregg declared the zone read dead earlier this year and then shut up about it once the 49ers reeled off a string of victories. Now that the Redskins are struggling, and because he lacks NFL-related material for TMQ, he decides the zone read is dead again. Nevermind that Carolina runs portions of the zone read and Seattle does at times too. Ignore that and focus on Gregg stating that an NFL team will want a quarterback who can throw the ball...which seems pretty obvious.

Once upon a time, NFL scouts wanted college quarterbacks who played in a pro-style offense. The theory was no one could learn to read pass coverages after arriving in the NFL: a player needed years of practice using NFL-style tactics.

It's the first sentence of the column and Gregg is already spewing lies and insanity. We are to really believe NFL teams didn't think a college quarterback could learn to read pass coverages better after arriving in the NFL? Of course NFL quarterbacks learn to read pass coverages upon entering the NFL. They see much more diverse and difficulty coverages in the NFL than they do in college. Plus, the NFL is now using college spread tactics in the passing game, so these quarterbacks who ran the read option or spread offense in college shouldn't be at a great disadvantage upon entering the NFL.

Then about a decade ago, the spread offense arrived in Texas prep football. NFL teams of the Lone Star State may be struggling, but Texas high school football remains the sport's leading indicator.

Apparently Gregg will continue to ignore that earlier this year he stated the Pacific Northwest is the newest hotbed of football activity.

San Francisco at Washington on "Monday Night Football," the traditionalist scouts had their revenge. There's a reason they liked pro-style quarterbacks, who now may make a draft comeback.

Or they may not. Or NFL teams will draft quarterbacks who can run an NFL offense while also having the mobility to run some zone read plays. Regardless, by stating "may make a draft comeback" Gregg has himself covered either way. His ego won't have to take the blow of being wrong no matter how this plays out and that's the most important thing.

In the game, Niners zone-read quarterback Colin Kaepernick struggled against one of the league's worst pass defenses, often sailing the ball where no receiver awaited.

Kaepernick was 15-24 for 235 yards, 9.79 average yards per attempt, three touchdowns, zero interceptions, a 134.6 rating, and a 90.6 QBR. Gregg Easterbrook is simply outright lying to his readers. Kaepernick may have thrown one or two passes over a receiver's head but he didn't struggle against the Redskins for most of the game. He was efficient and had one of his best games of the season.

I wonder if Gregg simply ignores what he saw during the game and the box score when writing things like this or he knows he is lying and wants to see if anyone will call him on it, because he truly doesn't care if his readers think he's a liar or not.

Mostly, Griffin and Kaepernick looked like quarterbacks who can only run a college-style offense. When the zone-read was a fresh idea last season, that was fine.

No, they look like second year quarterbacks who are having to adjust to the NFL adjusting to them. NFL defenses aren't stupid and they have adjusted to what Griffin and Kaepernick want to do on offense, so now these two quarterbacks will have to adjust to what the NFL defenses are doing. It's not like Kaepernick had even started a full season at quarterback in the NFL prior to this year. He's adjusting to NFL defenses adjusting to him.

On Sunday night, Peyton Manning and Tom Brady did vanilla, chocolate and strawberry to spectacular effect: Monday night, the flavor of the month was a bust for both teams.

Manning had a 52.8% completion percentage and 150 yards passing. Granted, he was playing in a stiff wind, but he wasn't spectacular on Sunday night. Stop making things up. Are there people who read TMQ and didn't watch a single NFL game over the past week? There must be because that's the only way I can explain why ESPN trots out TMQ every week when Gregg Easterbrook constantly misleads and lies to ESPN's readers.

The pendulum had swung toward college-style quarterbacks on draft day -- expect it to swing back the other way.

The first two quarterbacks drafted in the last two NFL drafts have both been traditional drop-back quarterbacks.

As for Washington, the club under Griffin has seen streaks of 3-6, then 7-0, now 3-9. That's not encouraging. Football is a team game. Not only did the RG III trade denude Washington of draft selections for talent and depth, the 21 coaches aren't performing well either. Shanahan is highly hyped and very highly paid. During the years Shanahan had John Elway in his prime, Shanahan was 54-18. In all other years, Shanahan is 124-121.

This is just further proof a coach's perceived talent and who he knows in the NFL can cover up for a lot of his deficiencies. Mike Shanahan has lived off his reputation as a two-time Super Bowl winning coach for a while now. My issue with Shanahan and coaches like Jeff Fisher isn't whether they are good coaches or not, but whether they are worth the amount of money they are being paid. Is paying $4 million more per year for Mike Shanahan as compared to another head coach really worth it to the organization and will it provide the organization with a better return on their investment than choosing a lesser known candidate as the head coach. I guess it depends on the other candidate.

With each successive season, there seems more evidence Shanahan was just the guy who was standing there when Elway realized his potential, and otherwise is a mediocre coach.

I don't think Shanahan is a mediocre coach necessarily, but he hasn't done a bang-up job with the Redskins quite yet. Robert Griffin doesn't seem to have the offensive talent around him that he needs to be successful in the NFL. That is partially on Shanahan and also a reflection on the salary cap penalties suffered by the Redskins organization combined with the loss of draft picks to move up and get Griffin.

Sunday, Denver faced New England in cold, strong wind, and Belichick completely outsmarted Denver Broncos' backup coach Jack del Rio in wind management. Winning the coin flip in overtime, Belichick took the wind.

How did Belichick outsmart Jack Del Rio? The Patriots won the coin toss. They had the choice of choosing their side of the field or taking the ball and Belichick took the ball. Del Rio didn't have a choice in the matter so I think it's inaccurate to say he was outsmarted by Belichick in this situation.

In another overtime game, with one second remaining in the fifth quarter, the Minnesota Vikings fair-caught a Green Bay Packers punt. The ball was on the Vikings' 34 -- try a fair-catch kick! Sure it's a 76-yard field goal, which would be the longest ever. But Blair Walsh has a strong leg, and there's no rush on a fair-catch kick. Many placekickers launch kicks that would be good from around 70 in warmups, with no rush.

Oh, many kickers do make 70 yard kicks in warmups? Do they do this outside and with a groups of rushers trying to block the kick? Don't forget the Packers could have had a man back to return this field goal attempt, which would have resulted in the Packers essentially have a free kickoff return. I would imagine if the Vikings attempted a field goal here and the Packers ran it back for a touchdown then Gregg would criticize the Vikings for trying a long field goal and allowing the Packers a chance to win the game.

Fans were deprived the pleasure of beholding a very long fair-catch kick on the final play of an overtime. It might be decades until an NFL team is in this position again.

Oh the tragedy of this situation. Whatever shall we do?

Yet trailing by only three despite the turnovers, Detroit reached third-and-12 on the City of Tampa 28 with a minute remaining. The Buccaneers blitzed. Stafford sprinted backward 10 yards, then launched a perfect lob to Calvin Johnson, who had beaten his man at the Tampa 3. Megatron, holder of receiving records uncountable, let the ball carom out of his hands for an interception. Game over.

Calvin Johnson has saved Matthew Stafford's ass so many times I think he is entitled to a drop or two. Of course Gregg focuses on the one time Calvin Johnson lets the ball carom out of his hands as opposed to mentioning all the times when Johnson goes up and grabs the football with defenders hanging all over him.

Sweet 'N' Sour Play: Kansas City leading 38-34, the San Diego Chargers, out of timeouts, faced second-and-long on the Chiefs' 26 with 31 seconds remaining. TMQ loves the tactic of, in a high-pressure situation, giving the ball to a guy who never gets the ball. Bolts receiver Seyi Ajirotutu, with two catches on the season, lined up wide left. He ran a go, and caught the touchdown pass that proved the winning points. Sweet.

TMQ is a fan of this tactic until this tactic doesn't work, at which point Gregg Easterbrook writes that the Chargers should have thrown the ball to Keenan Allen in this situation and not a rarely-used player like Ajirotutu. Gregg's criticism is always outcome-dependent. Always. His criticism is based entirely on the outcome of a play and he openly contradicts himself, such as in this situation. Over the past couple of weeks we have read where Gregg has stated a team made a mistake by getting the ball to a rarely-used player, but in this case he lauds the Chargers for throwing the ball to a rarely used player in a key situation.

Probably gamma bursts have a natural origin, but we shouldn't assume this. As TMQ has noted, what if they are the muzzle flashes of doomsday weapons?...Gamma bursts appear far more violent than nuclear explosion. If this burst happened in our Milky Way, the radiation would have killed everything on Earth, and any life similar to ours throughout this galaxy. When astronomers look into the heavens, they observe fantastically powerful explosions. We should not blithely assume all are natural in origin.

These aliens are probably shooting doomsday weapons at Earth in order to destroy the planet because humans insist on watching unrealistic television shows and brewing Winter beers when it is still Fall. 

The tactics for coaching in cold, strong wind are three: First, scheme to get the wind in the first quarter, to jump to a lead. Next, scheme to get the wind in the fourth quarter, when it's money time. 

This scheme would involve the opposing team making the mistake of taking the wind in the third quarter. Basically, this scheme requires the other team's help in making it work, so this scheme would only work if the opposing coach screwed up...which Jack Del Rio (in retrospect of course) did. 

The Patriots won the opening coin toss, so Belichick deferred.

The Patriots always defer. This is a tactic that Bill Belichick always uses, not only in this game due to the wind.

That left Denver to decide whether to start with the ball or start with the wind. Denver chose the ball, which meant New England could then take the wind. Remember, on the opening coin flip the victor has three options: If "defer" is the choice, then the flip loser takes the ball, then the flip victor can choose which goal to defend. So the game began with Belichick getting the best-case wind outcome for the first half.

Having the wind in the first quarter didn't help the Flying Elvii, who lost three fumbles, spotting the visitors a 17-0 lead. 

Gregg's tactics for coaching in a cold, strong wind is off to a rousing start.
 
When the referee turned to the Denver captain, inexplicably the visitors elected to take the wind in the third quarter, giving New England the wind in the fourth quarter, exactly what Belichick wanted.

Belichick is so evil. I'm not sure if this was inexplicable or not. The Broncos wanted to keep the pressure on the Patriots and wanted to make sure their Hall of Fame quarterback got the football again to put more points up on the board. It wasn't a great long-term strategy, but it had short-term tactics behind it.

Jack of the River compounded his goal-to-defend mistake by keeping his offense on the ground in the third quarter, which would turn out to be the final time Denver had the wind. As New England was outscoring Denver 21-0 in the third quarter, the Broncos ran eight rushing plays and four passing plays, never attempting a deep throw. True, rushing was attractive -- New England was playing a funky 2-4-5 alignment intended to frustrate Manning, offering Denver the run.

So basically Gregg thinks the Broncos should have tried to pass the ball, despite the fact the Patriots had set up their defense to stop the pass and allow the Broncos to run the ball. I'm not sure how forcing a throw into coverage (simply because they have the wind) is the best strategy when the Broncos could eat clock by running the football (thereby keeping Tom Brady off the field), but I'm not a tactical genius like Gregg Easterbrook either.

In the NFL format, flip-winning coaches almost always take the ball. Belichick understood that wind was more important than the ball at that juncture. Would Del Rio have taken the wind if he'd won the flip? We'll never know. We do know that in a game where the visitors seemed to have better players, the home team had better coaching.

I'm shocked that Jack Del Rio wasn't able to match wits with Bill Belichick.

Now Gregg kills space and time by referencing "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" and talking about dams. Yep, this is still supposed to be a football column.

Reader Jim Clair of Louisville, Ky., reports that last week, "ABC Family had a chyron touting the beginning of the 'countdown to 25 days of Christmas.' What was in the crawl was a countdown to a countdown to a countdown."

Yes, it does sound funny, but ABC Family wants to publicize their 25 Days of Christmas Programming and do so by counting down until it begins. I'm not sure how humanity will survive such egregious "creep."

TMQ contends that coaches don't go for it on fourth down, or in other pressure situations, because they want the players to take blame for a loss. Never was this better on display than in the Navy at San Jose State pairing. During the second overtime, Navy scored and kicked a PAT, then San Jose State scored a touchdown. That meant Spartans coach Ron Caragher faced this choice: kick a PAT for a third overtime, or go for two to win. That's two yards to win a game, on a day when San Jose State averaged 6.3 yards per offense snap.

But did San Jose State average 6.3 yards per offensive snap on down-and-short situations? Gregg is incapable of understanding that the call to go for the two-point conversion here is situation specific. San Jose State may have averaged 6.3 yards per offensive snap, but this doesn't mean they would gain 6.3 yards in this situation. On fourth-and-two (which is what a two-point conversion essentially is) near the goal line the field is more compacted and the running back has smaller lanes to run through. So while Gregg's conclusion San Jose State should have gone for it may be correct, the way he comes to this conclusion is not very good at all.

Afterward he said, "I felt more comfortable kicking and letting the players play to win the game and not making a coaching decision that could've backfired." Blame the players, don't blame me!

Or it could be seen as the coach saying, "I have faith in my players to win the game. My going for the extra point was showing my faith in the defense being able to prevent Navy from scoring."

Baylor and Oregon have offenses built to jump to a quick lead and cause opponents to give up; when forced to play from behind, both looked befuddled. Even excellent football teams need to play from behind. It's part of the skill set a champion must possess.

Or both teams looked befuddled by playing teams that had a good defensive game plan, which may not have anything to do with the skill set of a champion, heart of a champion or anything intangible like that.

As TMQ has noted before, of high-scoring teams such as the 1991 Buffalo Bills, 1998 Minnesota Vikings, 2010 Oregon Ducks and 2007 and 2012 New England Patriots, they tend to peter out late, as defensive intensity cranks up and tendencies become clear. This is a restive point for the high-scoring Denver Broncos.

So it seems Gregg has gone from stating earlier in this NFL season that high-octane NFL offenses are here to say, to now falling back on what he had previously said about defenses catching up eventually with these offenses. So why didn't Gregg mention the defenses would catch up with the offenses back when he was writing glowingly about the Oregon Ducks' offense and how many points the Broncos were putting up earlier in this year? It's funny how Gregg sometimes conveniently forgets principles and ideas that he himself furthers once he sees evidence contrary to what he believes.

Receivers Are Supposed to Receive: Carolina leading 20-16 with 10 seconds remaining, Miami's Mike Wallace dropped a pass at the Panthers' goal line. It would not have been an easy catch, but Wallace's job is to catch the ball.

It wasn't that easy of a catch and Wallace had to dive to get to the ball. I guess Gregg is going to skip over how highly-paid glory boy Mike Wallace abused hard-working, seventh-round pick Captain Munnerlyn the entire game because that doesn't fit his narrative that highly-paid players underachieve by being lazy and lowly-drafted players have no ego and work hard.

Last Week's Jacksonville Item: My item on the city of Jacksonville giving a $43 million gift to the Jaguars for stadium upgrades, while billionaire Jags owner Shad Khan ponies up only $20 million, originally contained a link to school funding cuts in Jacksonville, Ill. This error made me look like a complete idiot. The link rapidly was replaced with the correct one, to school funding cuts in Jacksonville, Fla. The item also said the source of the $43 million was a "new" hotel tax. The hotel tax is not new, so I took out the word "new," leaving the rest as is because none of the underlying points changed.

So Gregg didn't read the article he linked, unless he can't read English or doesn't know "Ill." means Illinois and not Florida, but the good news is he corrected this egregious error very quickly which completely makes up for the fact he was very lazy when linking an article he didn't read. Oh, and he didn't read the article (Have I mentioned that?) so he claimed the hotel tax was new and it wasn't. Other than that, no problems to see here.

More Proof of the Decline of Western Civilization: This year the Christmas classic "Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer" airs on CBS on Nov. 26. A Christmas special airs before Thanksgiving!

But I'm sure if CBS corrected the date the special aired rapidly then all would be forgiven. Right, Gregg?

Reader Brad Prescott of San Francisco notes this Ohio State announcement about Buckeye athletes with good grades: "There are athletes taking challenging majors, such as biology, economics and electrical engineering. But 21 of the 74 athletes lauded are in some form of sports, exercise or recreation majors, including 'exercise science' and 'sport industry,' a college department that lacks a grammatically correct name. In my view, such majors should not even be offered at a four-year institution. 

Two of my best friends from college took part in a "exercise science" or "sports science" major and they are now gainfully employed with an organization where they oversee facilities, deal with personnel issues and budgets. My point is that this major should be offered because students who chose to take this major can do something with the degree. I can't speak to whether this major is more challenging than another major, but these majors do serve a purpose.

People aspiring to work in sports should major in law, medicine or statistics; subjects like exercise and 'leisure studies' should be minors, at best. The athletic factory schools know it's easier to keep players eligible if they are pushed away from challenging majors [and] toward course loads that free up more time for practice."

While the latter part may be true, Brad Prescott from San Francisco has a fundamental misunderstanding of what an exercise science major does. They don't necessarily deal with law, medicine or statistics, so those majors wouldn't get them to the point they want to be at in their life. Exercise science is part statistics and part medicine, but it's not the same thing as majoring in medicine. I think Brad should probably know more about what the major entails at four-year institutions before suggesting the major is eliminated.

Years ago when Page 2 still existed and still had a background of yellow kryptonite, your columnist claimed to have drawn up a play that was "100 percent unstoppable." The play was called Blast Gold.

Sunday, the St. Louis Rams ran Blast Gold. Tavon Austin lined up wide; came in motion left, back toward the formation; took a toss left; took one hard step left and then executed a planned reversal of field, sprinting right behind a pulling blocker for a 65-yard touchdown. Reversal-of-field runs are high-risk, high-reward. Usually they occur spontaneously on broken plays. They should be planned more often.

While plays like this should possibly be run more often, this play isn't 100% unstoppable. If the defense is blitzing from the right side of the offensive line, then Austin may not have had time to reverse field or if the defensive end and cornerback on the left side of the defense stayed at home, while the safety stayed in a Cover 1 and moved left upon seeing Austin reverse field then this play would be stoppable. It's a well-done play though. It's just not unstoppable.

The R*dsk*ns went for it on fourth-and-2 at the San Francisco 41 early in the third quarter. The formation was a jumbo set -- except the extra blocker in the backfield was 180-pound speed receiver Aldrick Robinson. What the hey? Needless to say, run stuffed.

The run was stuffed not because Aldrick Robinson was the extra blocker, but because the play call, a run up the middle with Roy Helu was uninspired. Maybe the Redskins thought the 49ers would think with Robinson in the backfield that it would be a trick play. Either way, the issue was the uninspired and ineffective play call, not the personnel on the field.

The 600 Club: Hosting Navy, San Jose State gained 600 yards, scored seven touchdowns, yet lost.

And of course San Jose State lost not because their defense wasn't very good, but because their head coach wasn't bold enough to try a two-point conversion in overtime. After all, San Jose State was averaging 6.3 yards per play on the day which is completely relevant in a situation-specific play like a two-point conversion.

After the flag for pass interference was picked up on the final down of the Carolina-New England game, football insiders were all over the map trying to figure out what happened. Your columnist thought the call should have been defensive holding, which would have given the Patriots five yards and one more try.

It seemed clear it was defensive holding.

Close reading of the rulebook caused many to realize that once the quarterback releases a pass, defensive holding is no longer called. (Gronkowski was held before the pass.) That made me wonder -- how come once the ball is away, defenders don't start grabbing anyone not in the path of the pass? Consider the hitch screen that's a football fad. Once the ball is released by the quarterback, defenders could grab offensive linemen and wide receivers blocking for the hitch, and throw them to the ground.

Because it would take an amazing amount of reflexes and strength for a defender to see a hitch being called and then react so quickly and be so strong as to pick up another the offensive player and throw him to the ground. NFL players are strong, but it doesn't seem very likely a defensive player could react so quickly on a hitch to grab an offensive player and throw him to the ground, get up and make the tackle. After all, if the defender takes the offensive player to the ground then that offensive player has done his job by taking the defender out of the play. So it doesn't make sense for the defensive player to voluntarily take himself out of the play, which is what the offensive player is trying to do anyway in blocking the defender.

Patriots trailing 24-14, third-and-goal on the Denver 6, Gronkowski ran into the end zone, slammed into his defender, then turned around to catch a touchdown pass. Offensive pass interference should have been called. This was a four-point swing in a game New England won by three points. Guess that makes Gronkowski, and the Patriots, even for the Carolina ending. Given the similar game situation, one wonders: Is this what Gronkowski was trying to do on the final snap at Carolina? Maybe he planned to slam into Kuechly, but Kuechly grabbed him first.

Yes, I'm sure that's exactly what Gronkowski was going to do, but he just didn't take the time to reach out and didn't appear to make any move at all to slam into Kuechly. But yes, Kuechly cheated before Gronkowski could cheat.

Obscure College Score: Tabor 14, Benedictine of Kansas 13 (NAIA playoffs). Located in Hillsboro, Kan., Tabor College offers a FAQs page on which the third question is, "What does liberal arts mean?" If you don't know what liberal arts means, maybe you're not ready for college.

The answer given on that page is fairly long, so I would like to see Gregg recite what liberal arts means according to Tabor College. I'm not sure he could do it, especially since there is "Kingdom of God" wording in there.

Next Week: Peyton Manning vows to spend offseason training at South Pole.

I'm surprised Gregg didn't mention the "Peyton Paradox" this week. I thought for sure that he would. I'm sure we will get a dose of the "Peyton Paradox" after/if the Broncos lose a playoff game. Even if it is the Super Bowl that the Broncos lose, Gregg will point out Peyton Manning has difficulty winning big games. 

10 comments Rick Reilly Ranks the Top 20 Coaches in NFL History Using a Metric I Won't Ever Understand

ESPN is ranking the greatest NFL coaches of all-time. I guess this is similar to their "Who's More Now" list from a few years back, just slightly more useful and informative than finding out "Who's More Now." Rick attempts to explain the metric or standard he used to rank these coaches, but it seems like he doesn't use a consistent metric at all. He sort of changes the standard he is using based upon where he wants to rank these coaches. It's one of those lists where he has the rankings already planned out in his head before he did any research (which I'm not sure Reilly did research). Much like the rest of his writing, Reilly favors cheap jokes and bad analysis over any type of critical thought about where he would rank these head coaches. Oh, and there is a Little Mermaid joke. Because it is the early 90's again in Rick's mind.

I've been instructed by the ESPN gendarmes not to reveal who made our Greatest Coaches in NFL History poll.

Gendarmes means "a military force charged with police duties." It's not a polite way to refer to the ESPN executives who have made Rick wildly overpaid over the past five or so years in this way. This would be like Mike Hampton bashing the Colorado Rockies front office for being loose with money in free agency.

But I know who I voted for, and I know who the group voted for, and one of us must've voted on nitrous oxide, because we're a Carnival cruise ship apart on some picks.

Wow, that sentence was a roller coaster ride wasn't? We have an unfunny somewhat dentist-related joke and an unfunny pop culture (is Carnival pop culture?) reference.

Here is Rick's list and I have to spoil one point he makes about Bill Walsh in order to criticize some of these early picks. He puts Walsh lower than he should be (in my opinion) on the list because he won his Super Bowls with one quarterback. This doesn't stop Rick from putting Belichick fourth on the list, putting Jimmy Johnson 14th on the list and he leaves Mike Shanahan off the list entirely because he won two Super Bowls with one quarterback. Apparently winning two Super Bowls with one quarterback is unimpressive. So keep this in mind as Rick goes through this list of the greatest NFL head coaches of all-time.

20. Dan Reeves -- Gruff and grouchy, the man went to four Super Bowls, three with John Elway and one against him. That says something, doesn't it?

This one of the metrics used that I don't understand. So making it to three Super Bowls with John Elway as your quarterback and losing a Super Bowl to John Elway is impressive, but actually winning two Super Bowls with John Elway as your quarterback means nothing? How can this be? It's better to lose three Super Bowls with John Elway than win two Super Bowls with John Elway? How in the hell does this make any sense? Reeves even lost a Super Bowl to John Elway and Mike Shanahan, yet Shanahan is not on the list and Reeves is.

And in that one, he woke up on game day to find out his best defensive player had been busted by an undercover hooker.

But I'm sure the Falcons would have won the Super Bowl if Eugene Robinson had not propositioned a cop undercover as a hooker the night before the game.

19. Ray Flaherty -- Don't start with me. Just because he coached before Netflix doesn't mean he wasn't great.

Netflix wasn't founded until 1997. Quite a few great coaches coached before Netflix.

Won two NFL titles and a bunch of division titles in the All-America Football Conference (AAFC), which was a very big deal despite TMZ never having heard of it.

What the hell does TMZ have to do with anything? TMZ covers celebrities and isn't too big on pre-1960's NFL trivia. Maybe Rick meant to write "despite TMQ never having heard of it." Of course there are a lot of things TMQ has not heard of.

18. Tom Coughlin -- Won two Super Bowls with The Wrong Manning.

Yes, but he won both Super Bowls with the same quarterback...just like Mike Shanahan, who isn't on this list because he won two Super Bowls with the same quarterback. Again, this is a constantly moving and inconsistent metric being used by Rick.

17. Marv Levy -- Made four straight Super Bowls. You say he never won The Big One.

By the way Bill Parcells didn't make this list. Many of your know I am not the biggest Bill Parcells fan in the world, but Rick leaves off Parcells because he coached in New York and "only" had a .570 career regular season coaching record. Marv Levy's career regular season coaching record? .561.

Bill Parcells made three Super Bowls, winning two of them, including one over Marv Levy and his Bills. How Rick can have the audacity to criticize Parcells' career regular season coaching record and slip Levy into the Top 20 when he has a lower career regular season coaching record and fewer Super Bowl victories than Parcells? I can't understand this. I'm dumbfounded.

15. George Allen -- Would've been a great general. He'd find a way to beat you if all he had was two right tackles and a spatula. Never had a losing season. Won 71 percent of the time. OK, so it never happened for him in the playoffs. Sue.

Apparently Allen only had one right tackle and a spatula when it came time to play in the playoffs with his 2-7 career record in the postseason.

14. Jimmy Johnson -- Still can't believe he's not in the Hall of Fame. Do you think Cowboys fans would take him back right now? Made all those egos work, the largest of which was his.

You guys know it pains the hell out of me to plead for Mike Shanahan, but Jimmy Johnson won two Super Bowls with the same quarterback (Troy Aikman) and then Barry Switzer won a Super Bowl with Aikman. If we are assuming a great quarterback helps to make a coach look better, wouldn't it make sense that Jimmy Johnson doesn't make this list since another Cowboys head coach won a Super Bowl with Aikman? I'm just thinking logically, which I know isn't something Rick Reilly never does...to be clear, "thinking" is what Reilly never does.

I don't have a huge problem with a list like this one. Just use a consistent metric or make sure the metric you use doesn't get contradicted somewhere along the way. Rick has failed on both of these counts.

12. Curly Lambeau -- Six NFL titles. First to use the forward pass as his main weapon. Won two out of every three games with the Packers. Oddity: Lambeau never went to Lambeau Field. When he was alive, it was called New City Stadium.

It's not really an oddity. Lambeau died in 1965 and the stadium was built in 1957, so he was only only 8 years after the field opened and he stopped coaching in 1953. Lambeau wasn't even inducted into the Hall of Fame until 1963. 

11. Bud Grant -- The Norse God. He looked like the guy Hollywood hires to play a football coach. Always wore the expression of an Easter Island statue, even as Gary Cuozzo or Joe Kapp was fumbling away another Super Bowl. Maybe if he could've relaxed the rules a little on his players, like Chuck Noll, he would've won one of those four Super Bowls.

Sure, maybe that was the reason the Vikings didn't win the Super Bowl under Grant. Maybe if Bud Grant had worn his shoes on the wrong feet the Vikings would have won all four Super Bowls. Perhaps if Grant sacrificed a kitten at exactly 11:23pm the night before the Super Bowl in the back of a Buick then the Vikings would have won at least one Super Bowl.

9. Chuck Noll -- Four Super Bowl wins in six years. Then why isn't he higher, you ask? Because he did it with only one quarterback, Terry Bradshaw, and one defense, the Steel Curtain. 

(Bengoodfella hangs his head sadly) So because Noll helped put together a team with a decent quarterback and a great defense that won four Super Bowls this means he is not as good of a coach as Bill Belichick (fourth on this list) who won three Super Bowls with the same quarterback but didn't do it with the same defense?

I'm not arguing Bill Belichick is not as good of a coach as Chuck Noll, but what standard is Rick using other than his opinion? He wants us to believe his list is a list based on well-thought reasoning, but I'm not entirely sure it is. Some coaches who haven't won Super Bowls are on Rick's list with a lower career winning percentage than coaches who have won Super Bowls but aren't on this list. Opinions are great, just back it up with a consistent line of thought.

8. Bill Walsh -- This will torque people off, having Walsh this low, but I answer with two words: Joe Montana.

I will answer with many words: Not relevant in terms of how you have ranked these previous head coaches. Bill Walsh was an innovator and he did more than find Joe Montana (in the third round by the way) and then roll the ball out there to watch Montana win games.

He won all three of his Super Bowls with Joe Montana. Still, a very smart guy. One of the smartest things he did? Quit just before Montana did.

Just to be clear. The #1 coach on Rick's list won four NFL Championships (two Super Bowls) with the same quarterback for three of those championships. So that's kind of interesting to know based on the rankings Rick puts forth in this column.

If you don't think Bill Walsh could have won a Super Bowl with Steve Young as his quarterback like George Seifert did then I would kindly disagree. I think Walsh could have won another title with Steve Young. It's not like the 49ers nosedived after Montana wasn't the quarterback of the 49ers anymore.

6. Tom Landry -- The Fedora had 20 straight winning seasons, made five Super Bowls, and was my mom's favorite coach because he looked so nice on the sideline, unlike certain coaches in cut-off, bottom-of-the-hamper sweatshirts you might find at your finer Goodwill stores.

Landry won two Super Bowls with the same quarterback and had a regular season record of .607. He won 250 games in 35 years of coaching.

Bill Walsh won three Super Bowls with the same quarterback and had a regular season record of .609. He won 92 games in 10 years of coaching.

I like Tom Landry, but unless Rick Reilly is counting the number of wins Landry had in his career compared to the number of wins that Bill Walsh for his career then there's no reason (using Rick's reasoning) Landry should be ranked over Walsh.

4. Bill Belichick -- A mad scientist.

BUT HE WON ALL THREE OF HIS SUPER BOWLS WITH ONE QUARTERBACK!

The man already has been to five Super Bowls and he's only 61. The way he's going, he could make it to seven, a record. You say, "What about your one-quarterback rule NOW?"

Warning: Shifting metric ahead.

And I say, "How do you know Tom Brady would be Tom Brady anywhere else? He wasn't Tom Brady in college, was he?"

Oh, I get it. Belichick made Brady, but Montana made Walsh. Elway made Shanahan, except when Elway was coached by Dan Reeves, who made Elway a better quarterback, even though Reeves couldn't win a Super Bowl with Elway, who made Shanahan. None of it makes sense.

Rick does realize much of the reason Brady wasn't Brady at Michigan is because Drew Henson was favored by the Michigan coaching staff because he...um...was Drew Henson, right? Henson was bigger, stronger, faster, which is why he was often given the starting quarterback job by Lloyd Carr. The story is pretty well-known at this point, but to deny Tom Brady wouldn't be as good on another team is to call him a "system quarterback" and we all know how I feel about that type of description regarding Brady.

2. Joe Gibbs -- OK, here's where you start throwing shoes. But it goes back to quarterbacks. Nobody has ever come close to doing what Gibbs did, which is win three Super Bowls with three different quarterbacks, none of whom are in the Hall of Fame.

This is impressive and I can completely see how Reilly would move Gibbs up the list because he won three Super Bowls with three different quarterbacks. The problem is this seems to be the only criteria Reilly is using to rank these coaches and he isn't even consistent in how he ranks head coaches who won Super Bowls with only one quarterback.

That's like crossing the Pacific in a Little Mermaid floatie.

Come on, man. It's 2013. Little Mermaid references were old in 1995 and no grown man should be making a Little Mermaid reference. If you absolutely must reference a children's movie how about referencing one from this century?

1. Vince Lombardi -- OK, the chalk pick, but do you think Bart Starr would be in the Hall of Fame without him?

As Reilly said in regard to Bill Walsh, I have two words for you: Bart Starr. The best thing Lombardi did was quit in 1967 before Starr quit in 1971.

Couldn't you say that about Lombardi? He won an NFL Championship without Bart Starr but once the leagues merged he couldn't win a Super Bowl without Starr. I obviously am not saying Vince Lombardi isn't a great coach or wasn't a great coach without Bart Starr, but the same criticisms by Reilly of Bill Walsh can be used for Vince Lombardi. Once the leagues merged he never even tried to win without Bart Starr, just like Bill Walsh retired before Joe Montana could retire.

This former Latin teacher got a job nobody wanted -- coaching the 1-10-1 Packers -- and proceeded to win 74 percent of his games after that. 

That 1-10-1 Packers team had five Hall of Famers on it by the way. Just felt like mentioning this.

Now let me tell you whom I didn't vote for.

It's not who Rick didn't vote for that annoys me, it's why Rick didn't vote for these head coaches. 

I didn't put Bill Parcells in the top 20. Lot of people are going to file a grievance over that. Fine coach, fun guy, but his regular-season coaching record was only .570, which ranks below most of the coaches in my top 20.

Other than the fact he has two Super Bowl victories, which is two more than Dan Reeves (.535 career regular season winning record), Marv Levy (.561 career winning record), and Bud Grant (.622 career regular season winning record), Bill Parcells isn't as good as the other head coaches on this list. If Rick is going to give Joe Gibbs credit for winning three Super Bowls with three different quarterbacks, none in the Hall of Fame, then Rick should know Bill Parcells won two Super Bowls with two different quarterbacks, neither in the Hall of Fame. Somehow Parcells doesn't make Reilly's list, even though he has more Super Bowls won with different quarterbacks than most other coaches on this list.

Plus, Parcells' stature was blown up because he did his best work in New York, which is the scuba mask of the world. Everything you do in New York looks one-third bigger than it really is.

I agree. I think Parcells' stature is blown up because he coached in New York and Dallas, but you can't argue with his inclusion on this list when using the criteria that Rick is using. Parcells, using Rick's own criteria, should have made this list.

I stiffed Mike Shanahan, too. Like Parcells, Shanahan is a wizard, but both his Super Bowls came with one quarterback, Elway. He has won one playoff game in the 13 years since. Needs to prove it.

Jimmy Johnson is 14th on this list and he won two playoff games since having Troy Aikman as his quarterback. Johnson had Dan Marino as his quarterback in those other two playoff victories and Marino is a Hall of Fame quarterback like Aikman. But somehow Johnson with fewer total coaching wins, a lower career regular season coaching record (.556 to Shanahan's .572) and one less playoff win without a Hall of Fame quarterback is 14th on this list while Shanahan is off the list completely. That's ridiculous. At least use your own metrics in a consistent fashion.

Lastly, I didn't vote for Tony Dungy. People act as if he won two Super Bowls: the one with Indy and the one Tampa Bay won the year after he was fired. Kim Kardashian just got pregnant with Kanye West. Does Kris Humphries get credit for that?

I'm not even sure how this makes sense. This is a pretty forced pop culture reference.

And yes, he won a Super Bowl with Peyton Manning, but your muffler guy could win one with Manning in those years.

Really, asshole? My muffler guy could win one with Manning in those years? So how many Super Bowl victories, no, how many Super Bowl appearances does Peyton Manning have without Tony Dungy as his head coach? One. Manning has been to the Super Bowl twice and won it once...with Tony Dungy as his head coach. It's idiotic, stupid, moronic, to claim anyone could have won a Super Bowl with Peyton Manning when NO OTHER HEAD COACH than Dungy has won a Super Bowl with Peyton Manning as his quarterback.

Anyway, if you have any beefs, run them all through Adam Schefter.

I'll run my beefs through anyone but you. It's clear you don't know what the hell you are talking about and can't even adhere to the metrics you used to put together your list. This is another abomination of an article from Reilly. It's what happens when Reilly has to be pulled away from the "sad story of the week" and has to actually talk about sports. He's clueless.