8 comments Bill Simmons Has a Friend Who Didn't Want Carmelo Anthony on the Lakers Team, So Obviously Most Lakers Fans Felt That Way

I wasn't going to originally cover Bill Simmons' column about Carmelo Anthony. I do try to limit the amount I write about Bill and I had just written another post written by him. Plus, I didn't take the time to read the Anthony article. It just seemed like another "deep thought" column about an NBA player that Bill seems to be trying to do more and more of lately. It was suggested on Twitter that I read it, so I did, and here we are. It's the typical Bill Simmons columns where he takes an opinion held by one person, extrapolates it to mean the opinion of others and then adds a little bit of his opinion disguised as a fact in order to prove his opinion correct. Few writers are as good as Bill Simmons in using his opinion to prove his own opinion as correct.

This wasn’t one of our happier years at the “You Can Absolutely Win a Title If Carmelo Anthony Is Your Best Player” Fan Club headquarters.

I didn't even know Bill was a member of this fan club. I can't recall him ever stating he was a member of this fan club either. Oh, and this column is titled "No Escape from New York." Get it? There was a movie called "Escape from New York."

Our man missed the 2014 playoffs in the rancid Eastern Conference, then received a rude comeuppance from his new Knicks boss, Phil Jackson, who lobbied him publicly to stick around at a discount price. The Bulls couldn’t carve out enough cap space for him. The Lakers couldn’t offer a good enough supporting cast. The Rockets never gained momentum, for whatever reason. Carmelo ended up re-signing for $122 million for five years, pretending that was the plan all along … even though it wasn’t.

Yeah, tough year. Carmelo had to walk away with $24.4 million per year and got to stay in one of the largest NBA markets. Fan club members should probably like that.

You know what really shocked me? Hearing Knicks fans and Lakers fans wonder whether it was a smart idea to splurge on Carmelo at all. Where are you REALLY going if he’s your best player?, they kept asking. 

What this translates to mean is, "I know a guy who is a Lakers fan and didn't want Carmelo to sign with the Lakers." Because we all know the opinion of Bill's friends are indicative of the larger population as well. I'm sure there are plenty of Lakers fans who didn't want the team to sign Carmelo, but to pretend the opinion of Bill's friends is representative of Lakers fans everywhere is silly.

Take my friend Lewis, a lifelong Southern California guy, one of those complicated superfans who’s nutty enough to grow a beard for the entire NHL playoffs, only he’s rational enough to freak out over Kobe’s cap-crippling two-year extension, but he’s also irrational enough to still believe the Lakers could eventually sign Kevin Love AND Kevin Durant. You can always count on him for a rationally irrational reaction, if that makes sense.

Very little of this stuff ever makes sense. But I'm sure Lewis is the perfect representation to base an entire premise around and then write an entire column based entirely on this premise. After all, beats working.

When news broke two weekends ago that the Lakers had become serious Carmelo contenders, I couldn’t wait for Lewis’s reaction.

And I can't wait to hear about Lewis's reaction. I hope Bill provides it word-for-word in text form so I get the full experience of Lewis's reaction. Also, it's obvious Lewis isn't famous because otherwise Bill would use his full name so that his readers knows he is friends with famous people. Jimmy Kimmel isn't "Jimmy," Adam Carolla isn't "Adam," and the examples could go on. As a general rule, Bill uses full names when it is someone the reader knows as a celebrity.

Instead, here’s the email exchange we had.

Me: Are u officially in Carmelo mode? Lewis: God no. Hope he goes to the Knicks.

HOW INSIGHTFUL! LAKERS FANS AS A WHOLE DON'T WANT CARMELO ANTHONY! QUICK, GET TO THE KEYBOARD AND WRITE AN ENTIRE COLUMN, BUT FIRST TRANSCRIBE THE ENTIRE EMAIL EXCHANGE.

Me: You don’t mean that. Lewis: It’s a bandaid on a broken arm. It locks them up with no flexibility for two years until Kobe goes.

He didn’t want Carmelo Anthony??? On the Lakers???

Putting more question marks at the end of a sentence isn't going to make it suddenly less true or even true when extrapolated to show how Lakers fans feel about Carmelo Anthony as a whole.

I surfed a few Lakers blogs and message boards and found similar ambivalence. Some fans wanted him, others didn’t understand the point.

The two most accurate opinions in order to get valid, well-reasoned opinions on a subject can always be found in two places.

1. The opinion of a friend.

2. The opinion expressed on message boards.

What could go wrong with making an assumption based on the comments from these two sources?

Many felt like the rationally irrational Lewis — they wanted the Lakers to land a top-five lottery pick (if it’s lower than that, it goes to Phoenix), wipe Nash’s expiring contract off their cap, then make a run at the Kevins (Love in 2015, Durant in 2016). That’s a smart plan, except (a) they could easily stink and STILL lose that 2015 lottery pick, (b) Love will probably get traded this season (and might like his new team), (c) nobody knows what Durant wants to do, and (d) nobody knows if the post–Dr. Buss Lakers are still a destination franchise.

I know if the post-Dr. Buss Lakers are still a destination franchise. They are. They are located in California, still have a rich history, have celebrities who go to the games, and will have Kobe (who isn't the same, but he still holds weight) on the roster for the next two years. I have to believe that it's Bill's distaste for the Lakers that causes him to doubt they are still a destination franchise.

And it’s not like the Lakers are loaded with assets; they have Julius Randle, the promise of future cap space, the allure of Los Angeles and that’s about it.

I mean, if a guy wants to come to Los Angeles that's about all he needs. There is space to sign other players and he can live in Los Angeles.

They owe Kobe $23.5 million this season and $25 million next season — nearly 40 percent of their cap — without even knowing if he can play at a high level anymore.

Then when the cap goes up in two years Kobe is gone and the Lakers have a ton of room to make moves. For now, they have a guy who is insanely competitive and draws eyes to the team. And no, I'm not talking about Swaggy P, but Kobe.

Knowing that, how could any Lakers fan not want one of the best scoring forwards in NBA history? 

I don't think there are a lot of Lakers fans who wouldn't want one of the best scoring forwards in NBA history on the team. I think your friend Lewis didn't want him on the team. 

Why weren’t Knicks fans freaking out that they might lose their franchise player for nothing? Why were so many Bulls fans (and I know three of them) saying things like “I’d love to get Melo, but I hate the thought of giving up Taj [Gibson] for him”?

Bill knows three Bulls fans. THREE! I'm not sure he's ever thought that perhaps his friends are stupid and irrational. That could never be true though, could it?

How did Carmelo Anthony, only 30 years old and still in his prime, become the NBA’s most underappreciated and misunderstood player?

Because the media has beaten the "Carmelo Anthony is a great player, but isn't a winner who can lead a team to the NBA title narrative" and many fans can start to think the same way due to the constant onslaught of this narrative. I'm probably slightly guilty of it too. I would like for Anthony to play for the Celtics though. Not sure I would mind that.

Again, the idea that Bill's friends may be irrational and hold a minority opinion simply doesn't occur to him. It couldn't be true. Bill is very smart and so therefore his friends are smart because they are associated with him.

Now comes the part where Bill starts handing out opinions like they are facts and then treats his opinion as fact. He tends to do this often.

The problems start here: Carmelo Anthony is definitely better than your typical All-Star, but he’s not quite a superstar. You know what that makes him? An almost-but-not-quite-superstar.

Oh, okay. I didn't realize this was an official thing. It's always fun how Bill's hand out opinions as facts and then uses those facts to support his argument. It's very stereotypical only-childish of him.

He’s not Leo DiCaprio or Will Smith — he can’t open a movie by himself. He’s more like Seth Rogen or Channing Tatum — he can open the right movie by himself. There’s a big difference.

The only difference is that Will Smith does completely different movies from Seth Rogen. This is an annoying comparison. It only clouds the issue and tries to cover for the fact Bill is throwing an opinion out there and tries to make it seem like it's a fact. Some people do consider Carmelo Anthony to be a superstar.

Here’s something I wrote on July 8, 2010, the day that LeBron took his talents to South Beach.

I need my NBA superstar to sell tickets, generate interest locally and nationally, single-handedly guarantee an average supporting cast 45-50 wins, and potentially be the best player on a Finals team if the other pieces are in place, which means only LeBron, Wade, Howard, Durant and Kobe qualify. There’s a level just a shade below (the Almost-But-Not-Quite-Superstar) with Steve Nash, Dirk Nowitzki, Carmelo Anthony, Brandon Roy, Chris Paul and Deron Williams. (Note: I think Derrick Rose gets there next season.) Then you have elite guys like Bosh, Pau Gasol and Amar’e Stoudemire who need good teammates to help them thrive … and if they don’t have them, you’re heading to the lottery. You know what we call these people? All-Stars.

 
Sorry, Portland fans — I made a mistake not telling you to take a deep breath before you read that paragraph.

Carmelo Anthony does sell tickets, generate interest locally and nationally, has taken an average supporting cast to 45-50 wins (as Bill will later prove in this column, so how he doesn't understand Carmelo meets this definition is ridiculous), and hasn't had a chance to be in the Finals because the other pieces haven't been in place. What's dumb is Bill will, again, prove in this very article that Anthony hasn't had the supporting cast to be in the Finals. So he has no chance of being a superstar according to Bill's criteria until his supporting cast improves. Carmelo has taken steps this offseason to not put himself in a better situation with better teammates. More importantly, this fourth criteria means a player can't be labeled a superstar based on a factor that is somewhat beyond his control. I don't know if that should reflect negatively on the player or not.

But exactly four years later, those levels look like this.

Superstars: LeBron, Durant.

Almost-But-Not-Quite-Superstars: Blake Griffin, Dwight Howard, Anthony Davis, Carmelo Anthony, Kevin Love, Chris Paul, Russell Westbrook, Paul George.

Again, this is an opinion based on criteria that Bill Simmons has thrown together. Bill is using his opinion (that there is a set criteria a player has to achieve to be named a superstar) and written this opinion in one of his columns as proof that his opinion of Carmelo Anthony as not a superstar is true. Am I the only that sees the insanity of this? Can't Bill see it?

"Oh, no Carmelo Anthony isn't a superstar because I created this criteria stating he isn't a superstar based on subjective measures which were opinion-based. So taking my opinion-created criteria and then matching it up with my current opinion that Carmelo Anthony isn't a superstar, you can see that I am right in believing Carmelo Anthony isn't a superstar. Also, nevermind if criteria #4 means no player who hasn't appeared in the NBA Finals can be a superstar and it's not based on anything the player has or has not done in order to be considered a superstar."

A few semi-stunned notes about that revised list.

You created the list based on your own criteria. How can you be stunned at the results, you ass monkey? HOW? It's your opinion!

"My own opinion, which I have no control over, shocks me!"

First, two true superstars is the NBA’s lowest number since 1979, the season before Bird and Magic showed up.

I give up. I'm not going to argue this shit. Bill is discussing this list like it's not a product of his ego-driven opinion and is instead the results of a 10 year study based on facts.

Second, Anthony Davis is our only superstar in waiting right now … well, unless you feel like bending the rules and counting Joel Embiid If He Stays Healthy or my illegitimate Australian son, Ben Simmons (a frighteningly gifted high schooler who looks like Benji Wilson 2.0).

Kevin Love is 25, Paul George is 24. It's not like they are old. Also, way for Bill to plug a "30 for 30" while trying to drop knowledge about high school basketball players he's only seen YouTube clips of.

Our 30 for 30 about Benji is streaming on Netflix. 

Of course it is, Bill. Your column is one big YouTube link and advertisement for other Grantland content.

Third, we’re in the middle of an under-30 talent boom that’s as loaded as any run since the early ’90s, and yet we dipped from 11 superstars and almost-but-not-quite-superstars in 2010 to 10 of those guys in 2014. Six dropped out and five jumped in, not including Rose, who briefly careered into the superstar group in 2011 and 2012.

Bill is apparently going to keep talking about this list as if it holds anything other than the results of four criteria he created purely through the use of his opinion. It takes a special kind of ego to believe your opinion is a fact and then base a defense of another opinion based on your previous opinion.

And fourth, Carmelo’s 2014 level was a tougher call than everyone else’s combined. After all, he’s made one conference finals and zero Finals. He’s never won more than 54 regular-season games or made an All-NBA first team, although he did finish third in 2013’s MVP voting (no small feat).

Yes, he did meet every arbitrary criteria on the list, except for the criteria required which he has only a limited amount of control over. That criteria is the pieces falling together on a Finals team with that player as the best on that Finals team. Outside of choosing a team with a great supporting cast already in place (which Anthony did seem to have the option of doing), he doesn't have a ton of control over his supporting cast once he chooses a team.

Most damning, Carmelo has lost nearly twice as many playoff games as he has won: 23 wins, 44 losses. You can’t even use the whole “Look, Carmelo can drag any mediocre team to 44 wins and the playoffs!” argument anymore — not after last season.

The Knicks weren't mediocre last year. They were worse than that. Raymond Felton was the starting point guard and J.R. Smith was the second-best player on the team. I'm not a big Carmelo Anthony fan, but he dragged them to 37 wins. Take Anthony off that roster and they are contending for the #1 overall pick.

So what’s left? Can’t we downgrade him to All-Star and be done with it? 

I don't know, Bill. It's your fucking list so do what you want. Me personally, I'm going to assume most fans of the Bulls, Lakers and Knicks wanted Carmelo Anthony to play for their team and feel good knowing this is probably true in the majority. After all, what if I have four friends that agree with my point of view?

For me, it keeps coming back to one question: Can you win the NBA championship if Carmelo Anthony is your best player?

The short answer: Yes.

You can.

Bill Simmons' opinion: You can win an NBA title with Carmelo Anthony as the best player on the team.

Bill Simmons' opinion: Carmelo Anthony isn't a superstar because he hasn't made an NBA Finals as the best player on that team.

So Anthony is a superstar once forces outside of his complete control come together. Bill thinks he's a superstar, but the criteria Bill created which he has no control over doesn't necessarily agree with Anthony being a superstar. In conclusion, I have a headache.

If you believe Carmelo can lead a championship team, you’re leaning heavily on that 2011 Mavs playbook — you’d need all the elements we just covered, and you’d need Carmelo to unleash a damned good Dirk impression.

Only one problem: Dirk was better than Carmelo is.

Oh no. What ever shall be done?

Dirk is one of the 20 best basketball players of all time by any calculation.

Absolutely not true. Here are some facts I just created to prove my opinion is correct. The criteria to be one of the 20 best basketball players of all-time are as follows:

1. Have won at least one NBA title.

2. Has either played for the Lakers, Heat or Celtics.

3. Is from the United States.

4. Thinks that English Muffins are the wimpy version of a bagel.

5. That is all.

So you can see that Dirk isn't even close to being one of the best basketball players of all-time because he fails on two criteria and I don't know what Dirk thinks of English Muffins, but I do know he is from Germany, so there's a good chance he doesn't appreciate bagels to the extent he should. As you can see, Dirk isn't one of the 20 best basketball players based on the set of facts I just created.

He won an MVP and a Finals MVP. He made four first-team All-NBA’s and five second-team All-NBA’s. He won 50-plus games for 11 straight years, topped 60 wins three times, made two Finals, beat LeBron and Wade in the Finals, and won a Game 7 in San Antonio during Duncan’s prime.

And we all know, "Having won a Game 7 in San Antonio during Duncan's prime" is the MOST IMPORTANT cherry-picked criteria of all. Not even LeBron James has done this. Michael Jordan didn't do it. Magic Johnson didn't do it.

Amazing but true: Dirk never played with a Hall of Famer in that Hall of Famer’s prime.

See, now this is a fact. See how that works, Bill? It's fine to base an opinion off this fact, because the fact isn't an opinion, but has concrete proof behind it. There is a basketball Hall of Fame and Dirk hasn't played with a Hall of Famer while in his prime. Baby steps...

Bill starts listing Dirk's statistics as he is prone to do in order to kill space. Dirk is great, I'll leave it at that.

That’s why I dislike comparing Carmelo and Dirk. But I keep coming back to these two playoff lines:
2011 Dirk (21 games): 27.7 ppg, 8.1 rpg, 2.5 apg, 49-46-94%, 8.9 FTA, 25.2 PER
 
2009 Melo (16 games): 27.2 ppg, 5.8 rpg, 4.1 apg, 45-36-83%, 9.0 FTA, 24.3 PER

Bill dislikes comparing Carmelo to Dirk, but he doesn't hate it enough to base his opinion that Carmelo can be the best player on an NBA title team on a direct comparison to Dirk's 2011 Mavs. Then Bill directly compares Carmelo and Dirk's playoff statistics to each other. But yeah, he dislikes that comparison.

The 2009 Nuggets were Carmelo’s best team; they fell to Kobe’s Lakers in Round 3 with a poor man’s version of the 2011 Mavs. George Karl wasn’t Carlisle. Nene and Kenyon Martin couldn’t protect the rim like Chandler. They didn’t have a perimeter defender anywhere close to Marion’s caliber. They couldn’t shoot 3s nearly as well (only 31 percent for that Lakers series). They relied way too heavily on J.R. Smith, who imploded against Kobe and got outscored 204 points to 76 points.

This is the same J.R. Smith who was the second-best player on the 2014 Knicks by the way.

Again, in all caps … THAT’S THE MOST TALENTED PROFESSIONAL BASKETBALL TEAM THAT CARMELO ANTHONY EVER PLAYED ON.
The second-best team? You might remember them self-destructing just 14 months ago — it was the 2013 Knicks squad that won 54 games in a lousy conference with Melo, a past-his-peak Chandler, J.R. Smith, Ray Felton, a washed-up K-Mart, Iman Shumpert, Chris Copeland, Pablo Prigioni, a hobbled Amar’e Stoudemire and the immortal Mike Woodson coaching.
Again, in all caps … THAT’S THE SECOND-MOST TALENTED PROFESSIONAL BASKETBALL TEAM THAT CARMELO ANTHONY EVER PLAYED ON.

Now take that team, add another year to Chandler, add Andrei Bargnani, add another 15 pounds to Felton, and take away Chris Copeland. That was the 2014 Knicks.

So could Carmelo morph into 2011 Dirk if you gave him the right situation? We don’t know because he’s never been in the right situation.

Which is why it is silly to announce Carmelo isn't a superstar based on criteria where he could only be a superstar by being in the right situation.

As a last gasp, they used the Lakers as negotiating leverage (you better sign-and-trade Melo to Chicago or you’ll lose him for nothing!), only Jackson smartly sniffed it out. That left Carmelo with three choices:

Choice No. 1: Grab $122 million over five years from New York, play with another inferior team, miss the Finals for his 12th straight season, and pin the rest of his prime — which he’s never getting back, by the way — on Jackson’s promise that “We’ll Have Gobs of Cap Space in the Summer of 2015!!!”

This, along with more first round draft picks, is the promise the Celtics have made to the entire fanbase while attempting to trade the only player on the team who could be considered a star. I feel this requires mentioning.

Choice No. 3: Sign a four-year deal in Chicago for less money (starting around $14-15 million), become the crunch-time guy for an absolutely loaded Bulls team, and answer every question anyone ever asked about him.

At the same time, I wanted to know once and for all. I wanted to know how good Carmelo Anthony is. Because, right now, I believe the following things:
1. He’s one of the best natural scorers I’ve ever seen.
 
2. He’s one of the NBA’s eight or nine best players and has been for some time.
 
3. He could win you a title on his version of the 2011 Mavs.

Again, those are just opinions.

So far this entire column, including the decision that Carmelo is not a superstar and the idea that Lakers fans didn't want to sign Carmelo, are opinions as well. They are proven correct mostly using more opinions.

But what am I about to present to you? All facts.

1. His best team ever was the 2009 Nuggets. (Covered above.)
2. His best teammates ever: Chauncey Billups (post-Detroit version), Allen Iverson (post-Philly version), Andre Miller, Marcus Camby, Amar’e Stoudemire (post-Phoenix version, right as his knees were going), Tyson Chandler (post-Dallas version), Kenyon Martin (post-Nets version), Nene (never an All-Star — not once) and the one and only J.R. Smith.

I'm not entirely sure Bill understands what an "opinion" is. I feel like Bill believes an opinion is a belief based on a future outcome and not a belief based on a prior outcome. While I can't argue necessarily with #1 and #2 above, they are both most certainly very close to be an opinion. Inarguable opinions, but opinions nonetheless.

4. He had only four teammates make an All-Star Game: Iverson (2007, 2008), Billups (2009, 2010), Amar’e (2011) and Chandler (2013).

That wasn't even the good All-Star version of those players either. Yuck.

5. He had five head coaches in 11 years: Jeff Bzdelik (never coached again),

Well, he was the head coach for the Wake Forest men's basketball team, but it's true he never did coach again. Bzdelik was the head coach, but mostly just managed the constant wave of transfers out of the Wake Forest program during his tenure.
 
Meanwhile, Dirk had three coaches in 15 years: Don Nelson (Hall of Famer), Avery Johnson (made a Finals and also won 67 games in a season) and Rick Carlisle (future Hall of Famer).

Wait, is this true? Rick Carlisle is a future Hall of Famer? I think he's a great coach, but a future Hall of Famer?

7. He suffered bad luck two different times — when an already loaded Pistons team unbelievably picked Darko over him in 2003, and when his agent didn’t follow LeBron’s and Wade’s lead by putting a three-year out into Melo’s first contract extension (with Denver). In the summer of 2010, Melo could have stolen Bosh’s spot in Miami or jumped to the up-and-coming Bulls, only he couldn’t get out of his deal for another year. Those were his two best chances to find a true contender. 0-for-2.

But alternatively, when he had the chance to take less money this past offseason and join the Bulls, a team that was a true contender, he chose to take the money in New York. Carmelo had a chance to find a true contender and his choice was get more money in New York with the Knicks. Bill can't lose sight of this.

9. Carmelo is averaging 25.3 points for his entire career. Only 13 players averaged at least 25 points, and only 10 have a higher average than Melo: Jordan (30.1), Wilt (30.1), LeBron (27.5), Durant (27.4), Elgin (27.4), West (27.0), Iverson (26.7), Pettit (26.4), Oscar (25.7) and Kobe (25.5). Yes, that’s a list with six Hall of Famers and four future Hall of Famers.

And most of these guys can be considered superstars too, which leads me to the dead horse I won't beat. Carmelo may not be a superstar, but he's got a lot going for him statistically that could lead a person in that direction. What he doesn't do is meet Bill's subjective criteria to be considered a superstar.

Then Bill compares Carmelo favorably to Dominique Wilkins, Paul Pierce, Adrian Dantley, and Bernard King. This, naturally, leads to a brief discussion of the Boston Celtics because Bernard King played well against the Celtics. This impresses Bill to no end.

Bernard doubled as the most frightening non-Jordan scorer I’ve ever seen in my life — he took the 1984 Celts to a Game 7 by himself, for God’s sake. My team threw Kevin McHale (the NBA’s best defender at the time) and Cedric Maxwell at him, with Bird helping and Robert Parish protecting the rim, and it just didn’t matter.

There is the brief discussion. This column wouldn't be complete without a small Celtics remembrance from the 1980's.

Carmelo? He’s 92 percent as frightening as 1984 Playoff Bernard was. 

Not 91% or 93%, but 92% as frightening as 1984 Playoff Bernard was. These are very specific statistics based on whatever number comes out of Bill's brain at the time. You want facts? There's your facts.

14. You realize that Carmelo is better right now than he’s ever been, right?
• Years 1-2: 20.9 ppg, 5.9 rpg, 43-30-79%, 17.2 PER, 35.7 mpg, 28.8 usage, .094 WS/48
 
• Years 3-9: 25.9 ppg, 6.5 rpg, 46-33-81%, 21.4 PER, 36.3 mpg, 32.0 usage, .140 WS/48
 
• Years 10-11: 28.0 ppg, 7.5 rpg, 45-39-84%, 24.6 PER, 37.9 mpg, 33.9 usage, .177 WS/48
As his offensive workload has increased, he’s figured out how to become even MORE efficient by expanding his shooting range to 25 feet … only he’s never stopped getting to the free throw line, either.

But again, don't consider him a superstar. He couldn't even take the Knicks to the playoffs this year. You like how Bill talks out of both sides of his mouth a little here? He says Carmelo is great and goes to great lengths to prove it, but he also makes sure he has a mention in this column that maybe Carmelo should be moved down into the All-Star ranking of Bill's arbitrary rankings.

So what’s left? Can’t we downgrade him to All-Star and be done with it? Isn’t 11 years enough time to know — to truly, unequivocally know — whether it’s with television shows, music groups, girlfriends, quarterbacks or basketball players?

So Bill is sort of covered no matter how Carmelo's career pans outs. He has said perhaps Carmelo should be downgraded to All-Star level and then goes on and on about how great of a player Carmelo still is. All bases are covered.

And you know what else? Carmelo never received enough credit for playing efficiently as a hybrid small forward/stretch 4, especially last season,

This from the guy who asks the open-ended question of whether Carmelo isn't even an almost-but-not-quite superstar, but instead is just an All-Star.

Everyone bitched about his “ball-stopping” — something of which he’s definitely been guilty, from time to time, over the past few years — but when your coach is in a basketball coma and your entire offense has degenerated into “throw the ball to Melo and he’ll have to create a shot,” what do you expect? Every opponent went into every Knicks game saying, “As long as we don’t let Carmelo kill us, we’re winning tonight.” And he still threw up 28 a night and played the most efficient basketball of his career. 

As I am prone to doing when reaching near the end of a Bill Simmons column, I have to ask, what was the point of this column? It's shockingly rambling, even for a Bill Simmons column, it doesn't appear to prove anything other than Carmelo Anthony is better than "we" think, and the basic premise (that Carmelo's potential will never be achieved because he chose to go back to New York rather than take a pay cut and go to Chicago) is only mentioned and never actually stated explicitly by Bill. So this column is rather indicative of Bill's worst rambling qualities.

If you think of him like a Hall of Fame wide receiver — say, Larry Fitzgerald — Carmelo’s career makes more sense. 

No, it doesn't. It makes more sense to simply state Carmelo never reached his potential because he never played on a team that allowed him to achieve his potential, rather than start using an overcomplicated analogy that says this same thing, only with more work involved to reach the conclusion.

Fitz tossed up monster stats with Kurt Warner throwing to him. Once the likes of John Skelton and Kevin Kolb started passing through his life, he wasn’t throwing up monster stats anymore. But nobody ever stopped believing Fitz was great.

Fitzgerald had 954 yards with Carson Palmer throwing him the football last year. Does Fitzgerald require a Hall of Fame quarterback to reach his potential or something?

We made excuses for him that weren’t even excuses.

"We" didn't make any excuses for Fitzgerald. Stop using "we" to indicate what "you" believe.

Why didn’t we ever feel sorry for Carmelo? It’s simple — he placed himself in this situation.

Oh, so that's why "we" didn't feel bad for Carmelo. I was wondering why "we" didn't feel bad for him. In this case, I didn't feel bad for Carmelo because he could have left this summer and chose not to. That's a lot of money to give up though and Phil Jackson isn't a tough guy to put some faith in.

There’s a good chance he will play his entire career, then retire, without ever finding the right team. Unless the Knicks miraculously strike oil next summer, his own version of the 2011 Mavericks can’t happen.

Another reference to that 2011 Mavericks team led by Dirk, the same reference and comparison that Bill dislikes so much and has made so often.

There was an alternate universe here — Chicago, for less money, for a chance to become Olympic Melo for nine months per year. He would have been flanked by Joakim Noah, Derrick Rose, Jimmy Butler, Doug McDermott, Nikola Mirotic, Kirk Hinrich and a top-five coach (Tom Thibodeau). He would have found his 2011 Mavs.

The comparison to Dirk again...by the way, that Bulls team is better than the 2011 Mavericks. This is especially true if Derrick Rose comes back healthy.

Thirty years from now, long after he has retired and hopefully spent his more than $300 million nest egg wisely, Carmelo will be sitting on the porch of one of his nine houses, nursing a drink, staring out at an ocean and thinking about the unknown. Should he have picked Chicago? How much money is enough money? What’s the price of peace? What would it have been worth to know — to really, truly know? Was he good enough? Could he have gotten there? Did he have it in him?

Or he will be sitting there thinking about all of the money he made playing basketball professionally and that's nice to have? He can also look at his Olympic Gold medals and know he won an NCAA Championship for Jim Boeheim as well. There are some things he can hang his hat on outside of deep thoughts about the price of peace.

Instead, he’ll have to settle for people like me: the ones maintaining that he WAS good enough, only it’s an opinion and not a fact.

Right. Much of this column was based on an opinion (like how many superstars are in the NBA) that Bill masquerades as facts.

In A Bronx Tale, Sonny famously tells Calogero that “the saddest thing in life is wasted talent.” Well, what happens if you didn’t waste your talent, but it kind of got wasted anyway?

But Anthony did waste his talent according to Bill. Twice Anthony had the chance to join a contending team with a stronger roster and both times he set it up to where he didn't up choosing this path. So Anthony did waste his talent in a way, and Bill even states that in this column. Anyway, speaking of wasted talent, this is the end of another Bill Simmons rambling column. 

12 comments Gregg Easterbrook (Not Really) Previews the NFC

Gregg Easterbrook didn't really preview the AFC last week in TMQ, as well as did his 100th column about concussions. Gregg believes that high schools and youth leagues follow the lead of the NFL, unless the NFL needs to follow the lead of high schools and youth leagues of course. It really works whichever way Gregg needs it to work at that very moment to prove a point. This week Gregg asks if the zone-read is a fad, discusses the plot issues with "Star Trek" and continues to not really each NFL conference by not really previewing the NFC.

Is the zone-read option the flavor of the month, or is it the new vanilla? The first few weeks of the NFL season might tell.

Or the first few weeks of the season might not tell. Either way, stay tuned to TMQ where Gregg will tell us the Packers lost the first game of the season because their cornerbacks got caught looking in the backfield while playing zone coverage and the receiver ran right past one of these Packer corners. This would never have happened if the Packers cornerbacks would ignore the defense called and play man coverage all the time like Gregg seems to believe an defensive player has the option to do.

Last season, the Forty Niners, Seahawks and Potomac Drainage Basin Indigenous Persons (see below)

A. Nobody cares.

B. Everyone knows you are referring to the Redskins. You aren't as clever as you think yourself to be.

There are likely to be numerous all-zone confrontations. San Francisco and Seattle play each other twice, plus each line up against Carolina. Washington faces the Eagles twice and also the Niners.

The question is whether the zone-read is a fad or a fixture...or will the zone-read be a part of some teams' playbook and they will continue to use it as long as they have a quarterback who can execute the zone-read well, but possibly not use it to the extent it is currently being used? I vote C.

Considering the zone-read was a surprise tactic last season, who will surprise with it this season?

Oh Gregg, always misunderstanding offensive and defensive strategies. The zone-read doesn't serve solely as a surprise tactic, but relies on the quarterback's ability to run with the football and make a great decision as to when to pitch the football to the running back. What makes it work isn't necessarily the surprise, but the skill at which the play is blocked and the decision-making ability of the quarterback. It's like any other running play, where it is generally successful if blocked correctly and executed well.

Green Bay didn't sign Vince Young, or the New England Patriots sign Tim Tebow, because they need someone to fill the Gatorade bucket. 

No, really, the Patriots did sign Tebow because they needed someone to fill the Gatorade bucket and also for the purpose of seeing if there were ways to use Tebow successfully outside of the quarterback position. At this point, Tebow seems to be better at refilling the Gatorade bucket.

Imagine having to prepare for the disciplined traditional passing of Aaron Rodgers or Tom Brady and also for zone-read chaos when a guy who can run or throw takes a few snaps.

Or imagine having to play against Russell Wilson, Robert Griffin, or Colin Kaepernick. Not that preparing for Rodgers or Brady is easy, but the defense generally knows if either Brady or Rodgers are in the game then the Packers/Patriots aren't going run the read-option. So the real confusion comes in when a quarterback can run the read-option and also pass the football successfully. It's kind of a tip-off about the play the offense is running when Tebow is back in the shotgun, but the defense has to respect Kaepernick's legs and arm when he is back in the shotgun.

In college, the quarterback is assumed to be a rushing threat, if only because his economic value is so low: He works for free, and an injury does not cost the school anything.

Well, plus college defenses don't have the caliber of athlete that an NFL defense has, which generally makes defending the quarterback when he runs more difficult at the college level.

An NFL team might have $20-$50 million invested in its starting quarterback and thus wants to protect him from harm.

I can't make a blanket, generalized statement, but I'm guessing an NFL team would decide to use the read-option with their quarterback if they thought it could help them win games and the quarterback would be smart in trying to be smart while carrying the ball. Obviously an NFL team doesn't want their starting quarterback injured, but I don't know if a team would go away from the read-option (or zone read) if they think this could help them win games. Will teams run the read-option with Tom Brady? No, but the new type of quarterback that is athletic and can throw the football well makes the read-option a more viable strategy.

A zone-read rushing play is 11-on-11, and, as the Niners showed the Packers, you'd better be ready to account for that extra man.

Gregg specializes in summarizing information that the reader probably already knows.

TMQ noted in January that having the edge rusher force the action back inside is "the adjustment the whole league will make next season".

As usual, Gregg makes something black and white when it isn't really that simple. That's great if the whole league will have the edge rusher force the action back inside, but what will happen if the edge rusher gets blocked or the opposing team is running up the middle instead of the quarterback keeping the football and running outside? Things aren't always just as simple as Gregg wants to make them.

Adjusting for sacks and scrambles, only three NFL teams -- San Francisco, Seattle and Washington -- ran more often than they passed in 2012. All three made the playoffs; two won a playoff game, and the only reason it wasn't three was that Washington and Seattle faced each other.

What Gregg neglects to mention is that he has been telling us for the past couple of years that the NFL is a pass-wacky league and it will continue to trend that way. This is all forgotten of course when he finds data that comes close to contradicting this point of view.

In 2012, the top four rushing teams -- Washington, the Minnesota Vikings, Seattle and San Francisco -- reached the playoffs. The top three passing teams -- the New Orleans Saints, Detroit Lions and Dallas -- did not. Last season's stats show that, just like in college, a team can win by featuring the rush. For 2013 at least, expect an uptick in rushing plays.

Remember these statistics in mid-November when Gregg starts talking about pass-wacky offenses around the league and how the NFL is now a passing league where good defensive teams don't matter and the team that outscores the other team makes the playoffs. In fact, Gregg sort of talks about this very subject in this TMQ. 

Now, Tuesday Morning Quarterback's NFC preview.

Again, Gregg is using the term "preview" very lightly since he only seems to talk about what happened last year as it pertains to each team.

The Oakland Raiders gave the sun, moon and stars for Carson Palmer, kept him just two seasons, then shipped him to the Arizona Cardinals for a late draft pick. Arizona gave the sun and moon, though not the stars, for Kevin Kolb, kept him just two seasons, then waived him. Now, Arizona has Palmer, while Oakland is left holding a pair of late-round draft picks. Had Arizona simply acquired Palmer two years ago for what it spent on Kolb, this would have been praised as a brilliant move.

So it would have been smart for the Cardinals to give up a 1st and 2nd round pick for Carson Palmer two years ago, but it wasn't smart for the Raiders to do the same thing? The going price for Palmer at the time was a 1st and 2nd round pick, so the Cardinals would have had to give up a 1st and 2nd round pick for Palmer and there's no guarantee that he would have been successful in Arizona. So I'm not sure I am able to see why it wasn't smart for the Raiders to trade for Palmer, but the Cardinals should have traded for Palmer. They got him for a late-round pick this past offseason. That seems like a better deal, even in retrospect, then giving up a 1st and 2nd round pick for Palmer (which would have resulted in them giving up the chance to draft Michael Floyd and Kevin Minter---or Jonathan Cooper instead of Minter if the Cardinals made the playoffs with Palmer starting for them). The Cardinals have been terrible at quarterback, but a 1st and 2nd round pick for Carson Palmer is a steep price to pay. Of course the Cardinals did give up a 2nd round pick for Kolb, plus gave him a extension. So maybe Gregg has a point, but I'm always inclined just to think he doesn't have a point.

Arizona had an above-average defense in 2012 but the league's worst offense. Considering the offense could not stay on the field, the stout performance by the defense was impressive. The Cardinals' big problem on offense was an abysmal average of 5.6 yards per pass attempt. Palmer can only improve that number.

Right, which is why it was such a good deal to get him for a late-round draft pick. I'm not sure it was worth trading for Palmer if the Cardinals had to give up a 1st and 2nd round pick. Palmer just isn't worth that to me and I'm guessing he isn't worth it to the Cardinals either if they could go back in time and make this deal.

Arizona held a 10-point lead over the Atlanta Falcons, who would go on to host the NFC title game. Whisenhunt pulled starter John Skelton and sent in the never-used Ryan Lindley, who immediately lost a fumble that was returned for a touchdown.

This is a fantastic example of how Gregg lies and misleads his readers. The Cardinals held a 10-point lead and were even in this game because the Falcons turned the ball over seven times. Ken Whisenhunt pulled John Skelton because Skelton was 2-7 for six passing yards at that point in the game. He had six passing yards, so you can see why Whisenhunt chose a different quarterback at this point in the game. Gregg of course doesn't tell us this, but just tells us that Ryan Lindley was never-used and the immediately lost a fumble that was returned for a touchdown.

Whisenhunt replaced Skelton when there was 9:39 left in the second quarter of the game. Lindley was an improvement over Skelton and he only committed one turnover, that is one turnover, during the game. The Cardinals did not lose this game because Whisenhunt pulled Skelton for Ryan Lindley. They lost the game because both quarterbacks were bad.

Arizona was not only defeated in that game but was 1-6 for the remainder of the season.

ALL BECAUSE THE CARDINALS REPLACED A SHITTY QUARTERBACK WITH ANOTHER SHITTY QUARTERBACK! IT RUINED THE CARDINALS ENTIRE SEASON!

Atlanta: The easiest thing to forget about the 2012 NFL season was that the Falcons went 14-4 and came without a couple snaps of the Super Bowl.

This is one of easiest things to forget about the 2012 NFL season? The NFC Championship Game is probably of one of the three most high-profile games of the NFL season and the Falcons blew a lead at home. This is quite easy to remember.

It was as if in last season's playoffs the Falcons suddenly forgot how to play football.

They made the NFC Championship Game. How is making it to the NFC Championship Game and coming close to making the Super Bowl "forgetting how to play football"?

The Atlanta defense finished 24th statistically, and often -- at inopportune moments -- forgot how to play football.

My God, somebody please tell Gregg that the other team practices too. It's not like the Falcons just magically forget to play football, they get beaten by a team that showed themselves to be the better team. The 49ers came close to winning the Super Bowl two weeks after beating the Falcons. In fact there's a trend here:

The season before, the Falcons went to Jersey/A in the postseason and seemed to forget how to play football, losing 24-2.

The Giants went on to win the Super Bowl. 

The season before that, the Falcons had the table set, opening at home after a bye, then seemed to forget how to play football, losing 48-21 to the Packers.

Green Bay went on to win the Super Bowl.

In 2008 the Falcons lost to the Arizona Cardinals, who went on to make it to the Super Bowl. So it isn't like the Falcons are losing to shitty teams in the playoffs.

When Newton arrived in the league, defensive coordinators assumed he'd be mainly a running quarterback and kept their safeties near the line of scrimmage. Newton responded by throwing for a record-smashing average of 427 yards in his first two contests. Defensive coordinators then told their secondaries to drop into a regular shell; since then, Newton has averaged 248 yards passing per game.

Which is about average for an NFL quarterback. Newton also led the Panthers in rushing last year, which apparently Gregg doesn't count as deserving to be a part of this discussion.

Now there are 24 seconds in regulation, Buccaneers ball on the Cats' 24. Vincent Jackson, the opponent's best receiver, was able to run into the end zone covered only by a linebacker -- touchdown.

To be really fair to Ron Rivera, which I am not inclined to be, Jackson was covered by the defensive rookie of the year on this play (Luke Kuechly) and Josh Freeman made an absolutely perfect throw to get the ball into Jackson. It was a gorgeous throw and Kuechly had pretty good coverage on the play.

Otherwise, Gregg has a point when discussing Ron Rivera.

During the offseason, the Bears used first- and fifth-round draft choices on offensive linemen, then traded offensive tackle Gabe Carimi, their first-round choice just two years ago, to the Buccaneers at the fire-sale price of a sixth-round draft choice.

Gregg wants to know why the Buccaneers didn't just draft Carimi when they had the chance two years ago rather than give up a sixth round choice for him in 2013.

Why discard Carimi, a great college player and a major investment for the Bears, even if his NFL career started slowly?

Because he wasn't playing well in comparison to the salary that he was getting paid?

Front-office politics are the likely answer. New general manager Phil Emery needs to shift blame, so he gave the heave-ho to Smith, a hire of former general manager Jerry Angelo. Now he tells the world that Angelo's final first-round draft choice was a blown pick. Emery also waived Chris Williams, an offensive lineman chosen in the first round in 2008 by Angelo. This allows Emery to enter the 2013 season with excuses lined up.

It also allows the Bears to rid themselves of underachieving offensive linemen on the roster, regardless of where these offensive linemen were chosen. A General Manager's job is to make a team better and getting rid of two underachieving picks isn't front office politics, but an attempt to make the Bears better. I would think if anyone could understand getting rid of an underachieving player it would be Gregg Easterbrook. He is the one who constantly harps on first round picks being overpaid glory boys. Yet, the Bears get rid of a couple of these underachieving guys and Gregg doesn't like it.

If the Bears win, fine; if they lose, Emery can blame Angelo's bad draft picks.

Which is valid to do as it pertains to Chris Williams and Gabe Carimi. Neither player produced what was expected of them for the Bears. They weren't very good picks.

In the Dallas-San Francisco draft trade, the Boys gained only a third-round choice to allow the Niners to swap up 13 spots to the middle of the first round. In other trades involving the first round, to swap up eight spots, the St. Louis Rams gave the Bills a second-round choice. To swap up from the second round to the late first,

Perhaps Jones paid so much to Romo that he needed to move down in the first round to lower his rookie bonus costs and was so focused on moving down he allowed himself to be fleeced.

Actually if Gregg took the time to do any type of research he could see that the contract extension to Tony Romo actually opened up cap room so the Cowboys could sign free agents and their draft picks. It's irritating how Gregg makes these types of comments without doing any research. Maybe the 3rd round pick wasn't enough compensation for moving up 13 spots and maybe the Romo extension wasn't a great idea, but signing Romo to the contract extension freed up cap space rather than cost the Cowboys cap space.

In my draft column, yours truly observed that Mel Kiper and his kith get a hard time because their predictions are public, while we never know what mistakes NFL scouts make in private. 

Sort of like when Gregg states he wrote "Game over" in his Selena Gomez Trapper Keeper notebook and Gregg's readers have no way of verifying whether this is true or Gregg is just stating this using hindsight to make himself look smarter? Gregg's readers also have no idea of when Gregg has written "Game over" in his notebook and this hasn't been true.

Reader John Martin in Washington, D.C., reports that because Jones allowed himself to be filmed -- looking manly, of course -- in the Boys draft room, it was possible to freeze-frame and zoom in on the Dallas board. The Boys slotted DJ Hayden, taken by Oakland with the 12th selection, as a second-round choice. The Boys' board reflects guesses about value specifically to the Cowboys, not necessarily a Kiper-style overall ranking.

Yeah Gregg, pretty much every team's NFL draft board consists of that team's guesses about a player's value. That's what a draft board is.

Ben Cohen of the Wall Street Journal calls the new palace at the University of Oregon "the physical embodiment of this gilded age of college football." In the most recent academic year, Oregon cleared a $31 million profit on football, according to Department of Education data, while graduating just 49 percent of its African-American players.

How many of these players would have gone to college, much less graduated, without having played football or received a football scholarship? Not excusing the profit Oregon cleared, but I think looking at whether these African-American players would have been able to attend college without football is important.

Exploiting young black males without conferring education ought to shame Chip Kelly, the University of Oregon alumni and trustees and the NCAA.

Again, we have to also focus on two other factors:

1. How many of the 49% who graduated would have gotten a college degree without a sports scholarship? This is a difficult question to answer for sure, but I think it is an important question.

2. It takes two to tango. Chip Kelly has a responsibility to make sure his players go to class and graduate, but you can't make a person graduate college and attend class during college if that person doesn't want to. I guess Kelly could kick players off the team who don't go to class and aren't on-track to graduate.

Assuming Knight is in the top bracket, donating $68 million to the University of Oregon football program would cost him about $43 million. Taxpayers would be hit for the other $25 million. To cover Knight's deduction, average people must be taxed more or the national debt must increase.

The theory of tax deductibility for donations to colleges and universities is sound: Higher education benefits society as a whole. But when the tax expenditures go to football programs, society does not benefit.

Tell that to the Oregon football players and boosters who can proudly show off the new facility.

And if the money given to football might have instead been donated to the university's endowment or core academic mission, society is actively harmed.

Society is harmed under the assumption that Phil Knight would have donated this money to the university's endowment or core academic mission. I'm not sure Phil Knight would have donated $68 million to the university's endowment or not, so the only way to conclude society is harmed is if assumptions are made. And we all know what happens when you assume? That's right, Gregg makes shit up in order to better prove a point he wants to make.

That athletics diverts money from college education, and does so at taxpayer expense, is a broad problem. 

Again, we are working under the assumption that the money given to athletics would otherwise be given to an education fund. This isn't an assumption I am willing to make, mostly because I don't want to make an assumption to try and prove my point correct like Gregg does.

The University of Maryland just reported a $21 million athletic department deficit despite all UMD undergrads being charged $398 annually to subsidize athletics. That's about $11 million taken annually from regular students who are struggling to pay tuition and diverted to sports.

That's not what I'm seeing. I'm actually seeing $406.38 to pay for athletics. Of course students are also being charged the following fees annually as well:

Stamp Union Fee: $308.24
Recreation Building: $362
Technology Fee: $264

In fact, out of the $1,771.82 in fees charged to a full-time student during the 13/14 year, athletics is responsible for 22.9% of the cost of these fees. I'm betting in terms of students getting use out of these fees, that athletics is a much better deal than paying $362 for a recreation building. Maybe not, but in terms of the fees it costs a student to attend the University of Maryland athletic fees don't make up the majority of the cost.

Detroit: Stacked with high first-round draft picks and mega-contract players, no NFL team underperforms like the Lions. The talent-stacked defense, which allowed 49 touchdowns in 2012, has given up more total points than any other NFL team over the past four seasons.

I'm not sure you can call the Lions defense "talent-stacked" if the defense doesn't play well. Maybe the defense should have talent, but they clearly lack some sort of talent somewhere.

In a pass-wacky league, the Lions are wackiest. Adjusting for sacks and scrambles, Detroit coaches radioed in 378 more passes than rushes last season -- 24 more called passes than rushes per contest. While Seattle rushed 57 percent of the time (see below), the Lions threw just shy of twice as much as they ran. Because the NFL has become a passing league, even Bill Belichick is now pass-wacky. But Detroit takes pass-wacky too far.

It also doesn't help the Lions offensive line and running backs haven't helped the run game flourish even when a running play is called. You may ask in Gregg's opinion how we know when a team takes pass-wacky too far. That's an easy answer. A team has taken pass-wacky too far if they don't win games. If that team is pass-wacky and wins games then that is the right amount of pass-wacky. It all depends on the result, because otherwise Gregg has no suitable advice on what a team should do (or should have done) without knowing the result.

This column is a longtime fan of Vince Young. It might be chaotic when he's on the field, but at the double whistle, his team has more points than the other team. So it's nice to see Young get another chance with the Packers.

Vince Young just wins games. Lazy analysis will always survive no matter what.

Considering Green Bay's passing system relies on precise execution -- the Packers throw deep sideline routes, a favorite pattern of the Manning brothers -- it's hard to see Young running the same offense Rodgers runs.

So the Packers will just completely change their offense if Vince Young ends up having to start for the Packers. I can't see how anything could go wrong in this situation.

Mike McCarthy's charges were eaten alive by the zone-read in the playoffs and now open against the Niners. Young can impersonate Kaepernick when the Packers run the scout team. And if Young comes in a few times a game for zone-read plays, this will force Green Bay opponents to prepare on defense for two entirely different philosophies of offense.

The initial problem I see with the Packers running the read-option successfully is that at this point they don't have a running back that really scares NFL defenses. It's much different to run the read-option with Robert Griffin and Alfred Morris or Colin Kaepernick and Frank Gore than it is to run the read-option with Vince Young and (the unproven) Eddie Lacy. Before Gregg starts getting excited about the Packers running two entirely different offensive philosophies he needs to think whether the offensive line that can't block for Aaron Rodgers can block for Young when running the read-option.

Then Gregg publicizes a book he wrote about youth football that goes on sale in September. I'm not linking it right now and no one can make me.

Tuesday Morning Quarterback has long felt the Giants are a better reflection of the New York City milieu than the Jets, setting aside that both neither practice nor performs in the Empire State. The Giants bicker openly about money and ego, seem constantly on the verge of collapse, then rally and do something special. That's New York!

What? The Giants do not openly bicker about money and ego and seem on the verge of collapse. If anything, the Jets are the team that openly bicker about money and ego. Of course the Jets don't always follow it up with something special, but like always, we can't have reality infringe on Gregg's comparison. Gregg prefers to create his own reality that fits the point he wants to prove. He wants the Giants and Jets to reflect their respect states and so that's how he will frame his comparison, reality be damned.

The Jets seem constantly depressed and fouled up. That s New Jersey.

Okay...this is a really bad analogy. It seems there is more bickering about money and ego in the Jets part as compared to the Giants.

There's no sane reason to expect the Giants to be good this season -- but touts felt that way going into 2011, which ended with Eli Manning hoisting the Lombardi.

Why is there no reason to expect the Giants to be good this season? Gregg constantly makes statements like this with little to no factual backing. Why couldn't we expect the Giants to be good? They still have a really defensive line, great receivers, and Eli Manning as their quarterback with David Wilson just waiting to breakout. I hate it when Gregg makes a statement without explaining what the hell he is talking about. This is an opinion being framed as a statement of fact.

The Vikings' last season came down to this: In the playoffs, trailing Green Bay 24-3 with 11 minutes remaining, facing fourth-and-2, Leslie Frazier sent in the punting unit.

Since he did the "safe" thing and punted, he wasn't criticized. But down by three touchdowns in the fourth quarter of a playoff contest, punting on fourth-and-2 is like running up the white flag. Needless to say, the day ended with Minnesota decisively defeated.

I am willing to bet the Vikings still would have been decisively defeated even if the Vikings had converted this fourth down instead of punting the football. Gregg's point stands that the Vikings probably should have gone for it, but he is trying to tie the result of the game to this decision by Leslie Frazier when there seems to be a very tenuous connection.

And, as usual, led by Jared Allen, the Vikes did well for sacks. But the team finished just 20th overall on defense -- Allen and other Vikings defenders gambled for sacks at the expense of gap discipline.

On every play the Vikings defenders gambled for sacks at the expense of gap control. Gregg has no specific play that shows this to be true, mostly because he really, really enjoys just making shit up that he believes makes sense in his head.

In a third scene, New Improved Kirk and New Improved Scotty dangle together from a great height. New Improved Chekov comes along and hauls the pair up, using one arm to raise the weight of two men -- something not even an Olympic power lifter could accomplish. Perhaps by 2255, fitness DVDs are more effective at building muscle mass.

Or maybe, just maybe, this is a movie and the fact it involves time travel and aliens from other planets that happen to also speak English means Chekov lifting more than an Olympic power lifter could lift is not the most unrealistic part of the film. It's science-FICTION. The key word being "FICTION" which means "not real." So the movie is not intended to be realistic and I don't get why Gregg wants a science-fiction movie to be realistic.

In the flick, Starfleet is run by a neo-Nazi megalomaniac intent on galactic domination. He is able to build a secret starbase, there to manufacture the ultra-gigantic space dreadnaught, without anyone noticing. Wouldn't building a starbase in orbit around Jupiter require a fantastic investment of material and labor? Wouldn't an auditor have spotted trillions of quatloos missing from the Starfleet budget?

1. It is a movie and Gregg is stupid for asking this question. I can't comprehend why he takes movies seriously enough to ask these types of questions.

2. Gregg has described quite a few times how the United States government and other entities have lost millions of dollars they can't find. So let's pretend that happened here. Starfleet misplaced $500 million and can't find what happened to it.

said to be impossible in all previous "Trek" iterations, including the movies and TV shows set a century after 2255. Attacking a ship in a warp field was previously said impossible, even for Species 8472, the most advanced civilization the Federation has ever encountered. Suddenly, doing this is a snap.

I can't imagine how irritating it would be to watch a movie with Gregg Easterbrook. I would probably get so irritated by his comments about a movie that I would try to force feed him popcorn in the hopes he chokes to death or at least loses enough oxygen to forget what he was commenting about.

Everyone's waiting to see if Kelly implements his Blur Offense with the Eagles. Michael Vick, named the starter, would seem the perfect quarterback for the Blur; Nick Foles and Matt Barkley are pocket passers.

Never underestimate how uneducated Gregg Easterbrook can be. A pocket passer can thrive in Chip Kelly's offense as well and Nick Foles seemed to run the Eagles offense pretty well in the preseason. It's not like Kelly's offense always requires the quarterback to scramble and run option plays.

Regardless, TMQ is putting his chips on this wager -- not only will Barkley win the Eagles' starting job sooner rather than later, he will be the top quarterback of the 2013 draft class.

I am more than willing to wager on this. Also, Gregg doesn't count as being correct if Vick and Foles get injured this year because Gregg said Barkley will "win" the starting job. That's not winning the job he gets it because the other two quarterbacks were injured. Also, I don't know what the hell "sooner rather than later" really means so it's obvious TMQ is putting his chips on the wager, but not feeling confident enough to set out a timeline for when "sooner rather than later" might be.

But it's hard to see Barkley operating a zone-read action. The compromise might be Barkley running a quick-snap spread. 

It's not really a compromise since elements of this are currently present in Chip Kelly's offense.

What was this year's Song of the Summer? "See You in September", by the Tempos, was the No. 1 single of Summer 1959, then the top summer hit again in 1966 when rebooted by the Happenings. Summer of 2008, Coldplay's "Viva la Vida" was pounding out of every beach boom box and the speaker towers of every lakeside watering hole.

I don't know if "Viva la Vida" is the Song of the Summer for 2008. I can't really imagine that song pounding out of a beach boom box or at a watering hole. Maybe it's just me since it is an opinion. I would say "I Kissed a Girl" by Katy Perry was the 2008 Song of the Summer. You couldn't avoid it.

Perhaps the Song of the Summer 2013 is "Get Lucky" by Daft Punk. It's nice to see an act that has been around for a long time reach No. 1 in middle age -- 

The two members of Daft Punk are 39 and 38 years old. They have put four albums out and the first album came out in 1997. I don't know, again, it is a matter of opinion, but I'm not sure Daft Punk is in middle age for a band. They made their first album only 16 years ago.

The 2012 Niners were both impressive statistically and fun to watch, owing to the midseason switch from conventional passing to Kaepernick. Lots of things went very well. San Francisco finished second in total defense; the offensive line was stable for the entire season; 14 players scored touchdowns (lots of guys handling the ball is usually a positive sign);

Or a really bad sign because it means the team has suffered a lot of injuries during the season. I know, I hate to ruin Gregg's assumptions like I tend to do.

A mild question is why San Francisco used its three seventh-round choices rather than banking some of them, too. Considering the Niners have the league's strongest roster, can three late picks make this team?

Well of course they can Gregg. Aren't you the one who constantly tells us how great late-round and undrafted players are? I always love to notice how Gregg backs away from his insistence that late-round and undrafted players are often better than first or second round draft picks when it fits the point he wants to prove. When an undrafted player does well in the NFL, all of a sudden Gregg is back talking about highly-paid glory boys and how these first and second round players are lazy unlike those hard-working undrafted free agents.

In this TMQ, Gregg also suggests that undrafted players should make more money in bonuses, which could have the side effect of fewer undrafted players being signed by teams in order to save money. Obviously Gregg didn't think about this when making the suggestion to up the bonus of undrafted free agents. He's hurting the players he claims to want to help.

The Bluish Men Group attempted 405 forward passes and 536 rushes, the kind of ratio that was common half a century ago. With most NFL defenses geared to stop the pass, Seattle's run-first offense seemed to baffle opponents, allowing the Seahawks to average 4.8 yards per rush and 8 yards per pass attempt, both healthy numbers.

Yes, I'm sure every NFL team that played the Seahawks last year were baffled on how to stop the run. They had completely forgotten how to stop the run. Because NFL teams are only able to stop an opposing team from passing the football or running the football and can't simply do both. It always has to be one or the other. God, I hate Gregg's type of reasoning.

Carroll's defense played a power style, holding opponents to 6.2 yards per pass and 4.5 yards per rush -- both nice margins compared to Seattle's own numbers. The Hawks defense finished fourth against yards and first against points.

This really good defense was led by Defensive Coordinator Gus Bradley, who Gregg called "a weak, insecure coach" last week in TMQ.

Since the arrival of Jeff Fisher as Rams coach, the team has been active in draft-choice trades. Notably, the Rams dealt away the chance to select RG III;

Yep. I'm not big on what-if situations, but without using a "what-if" scenario one has to wonder how choosing to keep Sam Bradford around rather than draft Robert Griffin will look for the Rams in the coming years. Was three picks and keeping Bradford worth passing up the chance to draft Griffin? As Joe Morgan says, it's too early to tell. Granted, the Rams did get some draft picks out of the deal, which is always helpful to build a good team around Bradford.

Summing Fisher's trades, St. Louis swapped Griffin and two first-round picks, plus second-, sixth- and seventh-round selections for Tavon Austin, Michael Brockers, Janoris Jenkins, Alec Ogletree, Isaiah Pead, Stedman Bailey, Rokevious Watkins, Zac Stacy and Washington's 2014 first-round pick.

I realize I harp on this, and for fear of agreeing with Gregg, but when Peter King is praising the Rams organization's genius during the 2013 draft I wonder if he imagines Tavon Austin playing with Robert Griffin instead of Sam Bradford?

First in run defense, last in pass defense -- sounds like Buccaneers coaches were not employing balanced tactics. 

This could be why the Buccaneers signed Dashon Goldson, drafted Johnthan Banks, and traded for Darrelle Revis. It's hard to be a balanced defense when Eric Wright is one of your starting corners and a converted corner (Ronde Barber) is playing safety alongside a rookie (Mark Barron).

In March, the American Astronomical Society "expressed deep concern about the U.S. government's new restrictions on travel and conference attendance for federally funded scientists." Attending conferences is useful for many professions, but why should average people be taxed to fund science junkets? I write novels and benefit from attending literary conferences. If I demanded that scientists be taxed to fund my travel, scientists would be outraged.

The difference that Gregg is too blind to see is the term "federally funded scientists." Regardless of which side of this matter I agree with, these scientists are federally funded and believe their knowledge base can be improved and expanded by attending conferences which would help society as a whole. Gregg Easterbrook is not a federally funded author so an increase in his knowledge base theoretically would only help him sell books and the idea is this wouldn't help society as a whole. 

TMQ banged the drum for years about eliminating the Redskins name. Then, when the world seemed to lose interest, I returned to using the name in the column. Now that interest is rising anew -- two lawsuits are in progress -- this column will go back to calling the franchise in question the Potomac Drainage Basin Indigenous Persons.

What a sellout. Always following what's popular to do.

Next Week: Still America's original all-haiku NFL season predictions!

I most likely say this every week when reading the one sentence preview of next week's TMQ, but this is my least favorite TMQ of the year.

10 comments MMQB Review: Gruden Knows Best Edition

Peter King has some thoughts about the NCAA Tournament in last week's MMQB.  He made a comment that Wichita State was 4-0 in the tourney, while not noting this is a pretty obvious statistic since a team has to win four games and not lose any in order to make the Final Four. Peter also said Seattle is an underrated food town because of the good pizza (since that's the only food available in Seattle) restaurants in the city. This week Peter passively-aggressively tries to get a cameo in a movie that honestly sounds like a bad "Moneyball" ripoff, he (cringes) makes a good point about the 2008 draft, breaks the news to us that Raiders haven't been very good over the past few years and has a travel note that isn't like his other travel notes, which I am still not sure what that means. And oh yeah, there aren't any elite prospects at the top of the NFL Draft. We'll see if this comment holds up 7-8 months from now when Peter is fawning over a rookie quarterback or the impact Jarvis Jones makes on defense for the team that drafts him.

Now this could be a lot of fun.

An October pool party celebrating Brett Favre's "Average interceptions per year" birthday, otherwise known as Favre turning 44?

On the night of the first round of the draft, April 25, at Radio City Music Hall in New York, a major motion picture starring Kevin Costner will begin filming. It's called Draft Day. It's about the Cleveland Browns dealing for the first pick in the draft, and the frenzied hours around the trade and the pick, and the drama includes Costner playing the general manager of the Browns (he's cuter than Mike Lombardi).

Son of a bitch, Peter. No one is homophobic around here, but don't go calling men "cute." No man wants to be called "cute" by another man. Okay, maybe not no one, but very close to no one.

What the hell kind of train of thought goes through Peter's mind when writing MMQB that leads him to calling another man "cuter than Mike Lombardi?" Is it an inability to think of adjectives or just pure laziness in wanting to think of other adjectives? Between Peter constantly writing "precocious," and "cute" in reference to grown men I'm really starting to worry about his ability to interact with boys between the age of 12-18. When he meets a friend's 13 year old son does he say, "Boy, Charles you are getting really, really cute?" Probably not. Then don't write it either.

I asked a veteran NFL operative who has read the Draft Day script about the movie, and he said, "Pretty realistic."

Count me in as not intrigued.

And there is a Costner love interest, working in the front office of the Browns, who could give the whole thing its requisite Hollywood touch. (Variety reported last week the movie could co-star Jennifer Garner.)

Just say no, Jennifer. Do it for Ben Affleck. He can't be married to a woman who started her career out so strong with "Alias" and then ended up being the love interest to Kevin Costner in a bad ripoff of "Moneyball." Have standards. You married the most successful Affleck brother, don't lower yourself to Casey's level.

One last note about Draft Day: Seems Costner's original team was going to be the Buffalo Bills. But late in negotiations for on-location filming, Ohio offered the filmmakers a better deal. (Much to New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo's chagrin, I hear. He got involved and tried to keep the picture as a total New York-based film.) So that's how he became Browns GM Kevin Costner, instead of Bills GM Kevin Costner.

I keep referring to this movie as a bad "Moneyball" ripoff without any proof. Come on, you know it is a bad "Moneyball" ripoff. The plot will include older scouts who like one player, younger scouts who like another player, Costner jumping ahead of a rival GM (who is most likely a dick to Costner) through trade to nab a great player, this draft will be Costner's last chance to put together a great team or he will be fired, and you know the Assistant GM for the Browns will also be a dick who only wants Costner's job because apparently there are no other NFL GM jobs available. Part of me hates sports movies because I feel like I can be given a small outline of the plot and I already know what will happen through most of the movie. Also, Costner will probably have a daughter and will learn to love again while also putting together a Super Bowl winning team.

Now for what I have this week:

• Jon Gruden on the "Shaky the Mohel'' quarterback class (Florio gets that) of 2013 ... and why he's smart to like Ryan Nassib.

Of course Jon Gruden likes Ryan Nassib! He likes everything. "This guy right here, he's the best at his position until I say next week another player is the best at that position!"

I know Jon Gruden is going to like the 2013 quarterback class too. He likes everything. He thinks communism is misunderstood. He liked "Gigli" and thinks Kim Kardashian has wasted talent.

• Reggie McKenzie on taking his medicine -- prescribed by Al Davis and Hue Jackson -- today, in hopes for a better Raider tomorrow.

Don't get me started on the Hue Jackson trade for Carson Palmer. It was a horrific trade masterminded by Jackson, but Raiders management had to in some way agree to it. I think Jackson gets a bad rap for having been a head coach for only one season. Yes, the Palmer trade was terrible, but it isn't like Jackson made that decision in a vacuum.

You'll see Jon Gruden at his cocky, snarling, football-smarts best this week, when he continues his must-see-TV series breaking down the top quarterbacks in the draft.

I have only watched one "Gruden QB Camp" and will never watch another one. It's boring and over-edited. Plus, he is having Manti Te'o on the show this year. It's bad enough I'm supposed to believe Jon Gruden is a QB genius when it comes to finding young talent (look at his record as a head coach, he isn't quite at genius level), but now he is evaluating middle linebackers in a desperate attempt for ESPN to get ratings? No thanks.

What I find interesting about these segments, mostly, is they show quarterbacks in their natural habitat, or what will be their natural habitat in the NFL: the tape room, with the whiteboard for a coach, or player, to draw up plays. And they show which quarterbacks can keep up with one of the best quarterback minds alive, Gruden.

Maybe I'm just way off or maybe there aren't that many best quarterback minds currently alive. For me, Gruden's reputation is bigger than his results. I guess I have higher expectations than Gruden has shown me or am looking for him to win games with a young quarterback. He's fantastic at taking veterans and having them run his offense well. I will give him that. I just don't think he is very good at identifying and developing young quarterback talent. I guess Chris Simms worked out well for a period of time, but then there is Bruce Gradkowski, Josh Johnson, Luke McCown, and Marques Tuiasosopo. Gruden is good, but I wouldn't say he is one of the best quarterback minds alive. Maybe I'm just being hard on him.

So much of what quarterbacks are asked to do these days in college football comes prescribed from the sidelines. All the pre-snap reads in so many programs are done by signal, and you wonder if quarterbacks, when they get to the NFL, can adjust to checks at the line and what the defense is throwing at the young passer. As Gruden said to me: "This guy knows a huge volume of plays, and he showed me he can execute the plays by reading what the defense is doing.''

BREAKING NEWS: Jon Gruden likes Geno Smith. Who could have foreseen this?

That's what's great about these shows. The players can't hide. Gruden throws friendly fire at them, but it's fire. They have to respond intelligently, or he'll eat them up. Affectionately, but you'll be able to tell they've got some recognition weaknesses.

He's talking about you Cam Newton. You couldn't recite a play from Auburn and that has translated to the NFL where you aren't a leader. You got Grudened!

I asked Gruden Saturday what he thought of the 2013 class of passers.

Spoiler alert: He probably fucking loves them. They are cute and precocious.

"Last year was a ridiculous year for quarterbacks,'' he said. "I mean, five starters right away. This year, it's like every one of these guys comes from broken quarterback families. Tyler Bray at Tennessee: recruited by Lane Kiffin, family moves to Knoxville, everybody's excited, and Kiffin goes to USC. Bray ends up playing for another coach, coach [Derek] Dooley, who didn't even recruit him.

Russell Wilson left N.C. State after three years and played for Wisconsin for only one year in a completely different offense, Andrew Luck lost his head coach to the NFL prior to his junior year (he did keep his offensive coordinator as his head coach), Ryan Tannehill played wide receiver for the majority of his college career, and Brandon Weeden started playing football after failing at being a professional baseball player. It's not like all of the 2012 class came to the NFL from a completely stable college environment. 

"Tyler Wilson at Arkansas: Bobby Petrino has his situation, he leaves, and Wilson -- now, he was the all-SEC quarterback under Petrino two years ago -- has to play in a disastrous situation at Arkansas, and he's wildly inconsistent last year. Matt Barkley at USC: Held that team together through all kinds of turmoil. Geno Smith at West Virginia: They go from one conference to a totally different one, and now he's playing at Baylor and Texas instead of the Big East -- and that's a huge difference -- and you're having to learn about new teams with new defenses while you have this 20-hour rule, all you can spend is 20 hours a week practicing and studying football, and how do you do that? So it's like nobody had the smooth sailing of some of the guys last year did.''

Yeah, I'm not sure that's entirely accurate. Again, Russell Wilson learned a completely new offense after leaving N.C. State and Ryan Tannehill was a wide receiver for most of his college career. I'm not sure how that can be defined as smooth sailing.

So as opposed to saying nice things about these quarterbacks he is making excuses for them. Geno Smith has to switch conferences and play in the same offensive system. The horror! Matt Barkley played in the same offense for three years. How did he manage to survive in such a non-stable situation?

I keep hearing both Nassib and Manuel as late-first-round prospects. Nassib in particular, and certainly more than Manuel. Gruden seems fascinated by both.

Jon Gruden would like a quarterback even if he didn't have legs and weighed 400 pounds. Gruden would talk about how the player has overcome so much and boy he can really hand out punishment when he runs. Plus, he's so hard to bring down with his bionic legs and 400 pound weight!

The Bills are coached by Nassib's four-year college coach, Doug Marrone. NFL types think Marrone loves him some Nassib.

What an unstable situation that was for Nassib.

I could tell by listening to Gruden he likes Nassib. A lot.

(Bengoodfella falls out of his chair due to being so damn shocked that Gruden likes a quarterback)

As for Manuel: "He'd be a fun guy to coach. Very fun. Can call any play. He can run any play. Upbeat. Powerful vibe around him. People just like him. They want to be around him. Loves the game. I really, really like this kid.''

Gruden's evaluations mean nothing to me. Absolutely nothing. He loves nearly every player he talks about. He's gushing about Manuel here and it means nothing to me.

Regarding Nassib and Manuel: "You want Nassib and Manuel on your team. You want to be around Nassib and Manuel. If you like those guys, you're on the right track."

Considering Gruden likes to collect quarterbacks he probably would draft both Manuel and Nassib, but no, you don't want them both on your team.

As the smoke begins to clear for the 2013 draft, this is obvious: No one loves the top of it. No one. When you talk to league people, you hear over and over about how this is a middle-class draft, with an egalitarian class from the teens until the middle of the second round, and no real can't-miss stars at the top.

I think some of the offensive linemen are "can't-miss" prospects, but drafting offensive linemen is absolutely no fun I guess. If Chance Warmack busts in the NFL I am going to be very, very, very surprised. At his absolute worst, he will be an above average NFL guard...at least in my opinion.

A history lesson, then, this morning. This draft is mindful of the 2008 draft, which, in retrospect, had a significantly better second 10 than top 10.

Let's judge the top 10 versus the second 10:

Premier players: In the top 10, there are two, Ryan and Mayo. In the second 10, I'd say there are three: Clady, Albert (a slight stretch, though a top-12 left tackle in this game today has to be considered premier) and Flacco. Jake Long would have been, had injuries not derailed his career. He still may be one, but he'll have to be sturdier in his new address, St. Louis.

I'm going to hold off on arguing Joe Flacco is a premier player for a while. I will silently fume to myself because I may be wrong in still thinking he is not.

Better than average players: Five in the top 10 -- Jake Long, Chris Long, Ryan, McFadden (marginally, because of his injuries) and Mayo. And I would say eight in the second 10 -- McKelvin, Clady, Stewart (4.7 yards per carry in a job-sharing career with DeAngelo Williams), Albert, Rodgers-Cromartie, Cherilus, Flacco and Talib.

And to add to this, in the defense of Jeff Otah, he was a good right tackle who just couldn't stay healthy and probably didn't like the game enough to stay healthy. In terms of playing the game, he was pretty good. So the 11-20 spots of the 2008 draft were pretty damn good.

Busts: Gholston, Harvey and Rivers in the top 10, only Williams and Otah in the second 10.

But again, Otah would not have been a bust if he wasn't injured a lot and loved the game enough to fight through injuries. He had talent, but was a bust in the end I guess.

Think of this draft. Who would be all that surprised if Jarvis Jones, Tavon Austin, Alec Ogletree, Xavier Rhodes, Desmond Trufant and Bjoern Werner go in the second 10 ... and outplay their peers in the top 10?

Well, I wouldn't be surprised because teams tend to reach for quarterbacks and I think Jones and Werner should go in the Top 10 picks based solely on talent alone. So if they fall to the 11-20 spots then I wouldn't be surprised to see them outplay some of the players in picks 1-10.

Raider fans: You want the good news or the bad news?

Haven't they suffered enough? Just go with the good.

The bad: Oakland is missing two of its top five picks in this year's draft (the second- and fifth-rounders), leaving the team with just one choice in the top 65, and will have about $75 million to spend on the salary cap this year, a league low. That's because of approximately $48 million in dead money from the normal $123 million cap each team has.

Ouch. I don't have the heart to even slip a Terrelle Pryor joke in here.

The good: In 2014, Oakland will be in the best cap shape of any team -- or very close to it -- because GM Reggie McKenzie took his cap medicine in his first two years on the job. The Raiders will have approximately $50 million to spend in free agency and to extend the contracts of good players on their roster next year.

So after they extend the contracts of the good players on the roster what are they going to do with the other $49.5 million?

What's that you say Raiders fans? Your favorite team hasn't gone 1-15 or 2-14 over the last decade? Shut up, I'm trying to be a bully.

Think about an NFL team having $75 million to spend on players in a year. 

Because I'm a cautious man, this sounds like a disaster-in-waiting to me. Too much money to spend is a bad thing sometimes for an NFL team.

"Yes, and we've talked about that,'' McKenzie said. "Remember -- the way I was raised in football, in Green Bay, was not as a big spender in free agency. I hope we continue to draft well, and I hope we can sign our own players, because that's the way I believe you win in this league. You draft, develop and sign your own players. Mark is on board with that, and what we have to do now and in the future, he's on board with and understands and he supports.''

Al Davis says only winning makes him understand and support the long-term plan for the Raiders. The only long-term plan is to be successful and win games. This is also the short-term plan.

The level of incompetence in the draft room by the Raiders is stunning. Over the past nine years they're the only team to not draft a Pro Bowl player in the first round. The year-by-year futility in drafting:

Let's spare our eyes and just say Darren McFadden is the only first round draft pick on the roster today and they haven't had a first round pick in the last two years. This year they have the #3 overall pick and I feel like Al Davis would have taken Tavon Austin in that spot.

Then Peter says really nice things about Jack Pardee, including this nugget/factoid that Peter could certainly learn from:

One other story: The Oilers were playing a preseason game one August Saturday evening in San Diego, and after the game, Pardee stuck around the stadium to tape his coach's show. His PR man, Chip Namias, and PR lieutenant, Dave Pearson, drove Pardee back to the hotel in a rental car. Pardee still was in his coaches' clothing for the show -- coaches' shorts and a polo shirt. On the way back to the hotel, he asked to stop at a Ralph's, a grocery store chain, so he could get some beer. They went into Ralph's, Pardee got two six-packs, and they went to pay. Only one checkout stand was open. So they waited. And waited. An NFL coach, in his coaches clothing, patiently waiting with his two six-packs 10, 15 minutes for the long line to go down, and not complaining.

Peter could learn some patience from Jack Pardee. I am sure Peter would stretch this story into a five paragraph complaint about the grocery store only having one lane open. I find it funny that Peter thinks it is amazing for an NFL coach to wait in a long line at the grocery store (which is what millions of people deal with on a regular basis), as if Pardee is above having to wait in lines with normal people. It tells me a lot about Peter that he is impressed by this story and it also lets me know that Peter probably does believe himself to be WAY too important to be inconvenienced by the normal everyday issues with which other people have to deal. Peter is an NFL writer. How dare he have to wait in line!

We hadn't heard much about the son of Gregg Williams, Blake Williams, since his dismissal by Jeff Fisher as Rams linebacker coach and defensive playcaller after the season -- until last week. NCAA Division II team William Jewell College of Missouri hired Blake Williams as defensive consultant and presumptive playcaller. Quite a precipitous fall.

Right, but remember that time Blake Williams was calling out the defensive calls so strongly in training camp last year? That...that...that was pretty neat for Peter to hear.

Mr. Starwood Preferred Member Travel Note of the Week

I just have to travel more. Two notes for you, not necessarily what you're used to reading as travel notes.

We are mostly used to reading about bitching and whining from Peter about how he has to wait in line or is inconvenienced by the lack of quality coffee available at a hotel...so there's really nothing we are used to reading as a travel note.

Two: Maybe wearing gym shorts and an old hoodie, with an open paper cup of coffee, and a dog laying at my feet, isn't the proper way to wait for one's wife outside a Food Emporium grocery store on the east side of Manhattan. There I was over the weekend, while my wife did a little shopping inside, and a guy walked out of the store toward me and fished out two quarters. "Here you go,'' he said.

That's fantastic. Peter must have been very offended he was mistaken for a homeless man by this guy walking out of the store. I'm surprised Peter didn't punch the guy in the face for daring to believe Peter was anything but NFL royalty. I'm guessing next time Peter is in public he will just wear a shirt that says, "I'm important and work for Sports Illustrated and NBC Sports. I have plenty of money, thank you." Sure, it is a long sign, but it would get the point across and not allow anything to think Peter is a disgusting, horrible, middle-class person who needs money.

I said, "No, no, no, I'm good. But thanks.''

Yeah, right. You know Peter kept this money. He probably thinks it is about time the general public started paying him directly for the delicious nuggets of football-related goodness he provides on a weekly basis.

Ten Things I Think I Think

2. I think the meaning of Terrell Owens, who turns 40 this year, catching passes from Tom Brady in a Los Angeles workout is this: Owens wants to continue his NFL career. Brady wants to have receivers catch balls from him when he works out. That is all. Not saying it's impossible that T.O. will end up in someone's camp, but I highly doubt it, and I highly, highly doubt it will be New England's.

What? So you are telling me there is a free agent who Peter doesn't think the Patriots would have interest in this offseason? I'm shocked.

3. I think around this time of year, everyone has an opinion, and for an analyst like Pro Football Weekly's Nolan Nawrocki to be highly critical of Geno Smith ("Not a student of the game, not committed or focused") is not surprising. Understand one thing: People like Nawrocki are not making this up. NFL scouts talk to people studying the draft, and they have opinions, and they understand that the analysts are going to put the opinions in their own words. Now, is Smith a bad student, or not focused? Not from what I have heard. But I probably haven't spoken to the same people Nawrocki has.

The question people are asking isn't whether Nolan Nawrocki has been making these evaluations up or not, but the question is if Nawrocki is only speaking and quoting those who have negative things to say about Geno Smith. It is just that the buzz surrounding Smith from other experts isn't that he has commitment or focus problems, so other draft experts are wondering how Nawrocki came to a different conclusion in his analysis of Smith. I think we all realize these experts talk to different people, but how can the conclusion Nawrocki reached be so different from what other draft experts perceive? So then the question goes back to Nawrocki's prior analysis of draft-eligible quarterbacks and whether that analysis is accurate now.

Do you think GM Buddy Nix is taking shortcuts on the eighth pick in the draft, and do you think coach Doug Marrone would take Smith, upon whose shoulders his future as an NFL head coach will depend, without doing full due diligence?

No, nobody thinks this. These draft experts don't all have to reach the same conclusion, but yet again, Nawrocki reaches a very different conclusion from other draft experts. It has become a sort of trend.

Who has succeeded more in the past few drafts? Atlanta GM Thomas Dimitroff made a risky move to deal for Julio Jones, which looks smart now. I didn't like Indy GM Ryan Grigson at the time for taking a second straight tight end in the 2012 draft, but Dwayne Allen turned out to be one of the best rookies in the league last year. Seattle GM John Schneider took Russell Wilson 75th overall last year, and everyone said he reached for the diminutive Wilson. Some reach. My point: Dimitroff, Grigson and Schneider aren't biting their nails because Nolan Nawrocki questions a player they like.

Leave it to Peter to miss the entire damn point of the whole discussion about Nolan Nawrocki's evaluation of Geno Smith. No one is afraid an NFL team will listen to Nawrock's analysis and blindly not choose Smith based entirely on what Nawrocki says. The concern is that Nawrocki has reached a very different conclusion about a black quarterback and this isn't the first time this has happened. THAT is the entire discussion being had about Nawrocki's evaluation of Geno Smith. The discussion has nothing to do with NFL teams and what they do/don't believe, but has everything to do with Nawrocki destroying another black quarterback in his evaluation prior to the NFL Draft.

7. I think Charles Woodson is right. He said the other day he's not been signed in free agency because teams think he's too old. What gave it away? The fact you're 36?

Says the guy who seems to completely misunderstand the criticism of Nolan Nawrocki's evaluation of Geno Smith.

9. I think (making an exception on my football thoughts of the week to include the loss of a great critic, Roger Ebert)

There's a section in Peter's "Ten Things I Think I Think" for what Peter calls his "non-football thoughts of the week." Wouldn't a thought about a movie critic be a natural entry into "non-football thoughts"? I guess not. So can we now expect "non-football thoughts of the week" and "non-football related non-football thoughts of the week" in MMQB? Between the three pages of Peter's thoughts, his Tweets of the Week, Quotes of the Week, and Travel Note, pretty soon I think MMQB is going to be 10 pages long and the only information about the NFL is going to be one chart on how well the Falcons have drafted over the last five years, along with a picture of Peter eating lunch with Roger Goodell.

g. The meaning, it seems to me, is that Roger Ebert was his profession's Troy Brown. Mr. Versatile, getting the job done in many different media.

I would be shocked if Roger Ebert didn't directly resemble a New England Patriots player. They are the only team who has players who can be directly comparable to a movie critic. I didn't think Troy Brown would be the Patriot that Peter would compare Ebert to though...

What about Wes Welker? He's always reliable and always there when you need him to be there for some help. You really dropped the ball on this comparison, Peter (like Welker started doing over the last year or two). You are the "Two and a Half Men" of your profession. No one is entirely sure how you have so many fans, but it seems like you take every chance you can to remind us and rub it in our face how well-thought of you are.

i. Jose Iglesias, 2012: eight hits, 68 at-bats. Jose Iglesias, 2013: nine hits, 16 at-bats.

It's almost like players mature and improve between October and April. That can't be true though, can it?

j. Rest in peace, Matthew Warren. The 27-year-old son of pastor Rick Warren suffered from depression. So sad.

Yes, Matthew Warren was so sad. Why do you have to be dick and mock his depressive condition?

l. Get wise, in a hurry, legislators standing in the way of real gun reform.

Get wise, and do what Peter tells you to do. Only the unwise don't listen to Peter on political matters. Peter is the Angelina Jolie of his profession. He's always willing to give his opinion and no one asked for it.

r. Happy opening day, Fenway.

Fenway Park, an inanimate object which has no feelings or way to communicate with anyone or anything, thanks you.

u. I'm a little late for Mad Men. Five years, to be exact. But it feels like a show I should catch up on.

And when you do, don't tell us about how you caught up or comment on the show. Thanks.

The Adieu Haiku

A key draft nugget:
Syracuse passer's name is
NASS-ib, not na-SEEB.

Who cares how Nassib's name is pronounced? All I want to know is if Peter finds Nassib to be cute.