I was surprised to learn this blog already had a "George Washington" tag. Of course the previous post had nothing to do with George Washington and was about a transgender basketball player. Here at BotB, we tackle the issues no one else will touch long before anyone is willing to address the issue. Today, possible editor-in-chief, but possibly not editor-in-chief so let's just keep wondering for another couple of years about it, of "The Undefeated" Howard Bryant says that Chip Kelly may not be racist. He just has the same cultural issue that George Washington faced during the Revolutionary War with the New Englanders. Bryant is clear in stating he's not wondering whether Kelly is racist or not, because that would be absurd, but the idea Kelly could have a problem with certain races is not absurd. Apparently that's different from being a racist by tying it into a broad cultural issue where Kelly suffers from the same non-racist semi-racist tendencies that the rest of society has.
FACED WITH A challenge far more grave than winning the NFC East,
George Washington was named commander-in-chief of the Continental Army
in June 1775.
"A challenge far more grave than winning the NFC East..."
Hey, George Washington never had to match wits with Chip Kelly, stop Odell Beckham Jr, shut down the Cowboys' running game or pretend to block so that Robert Griffin gets murdered by a pass rusher. Washington also never had to worry about his best general being lost for a year due to an ACL tear.
Before embarking on campaigns against the British, his first battle came
in taking command of troops he hated. Washington reviled Massachusetts
soldiers.
And just like how George Washington hated Massachusetts soldiers that he had no option but to work with, Chip Kelly deals with hating the players that he ultimately has a choice on whether to work with or not.
According to Edward G. Lengel's General George Washington: A Military Life, Washington "regarded the common soldiers of that colony as 'an exceeding dirty & nasty people.'"
Sadly, "Boston Strong" at one point wasn't an uplifting message of hope and unity, but a reference to the poor bathing habits of the Massachusetts colony.
In 1776, author David McCullough likewise writes that Washington
found New Englanders "to be men of a decidedly different sort than he
had expected, and he was not at all pleased."
You may ask, "What does this have to do with Chip Kelly?" Don't worry, it will never be made entirely clear as to what George Washington not liking Massachusetts soldiers has to do with whether Chip Kelly is a racist or not. It seems Howard Bryant just got done reading a few books about the Revolutionary War and can't wait to share the knowledge he's learned.
Reliance on a workforce has never required respecting or understanding it.
This is true. Most people who have a supervisor can agree they are relied on by their supervisor, but not respected or understood by this supervisor. While knowing reliance on a workforce never required respecting or understanding it, also know not relying on certain people in the workforce doesn't mean you don't respect or understand them. It just means you don't want them to work for you anymore.
Steelers corner Brandon Boykin
seemed to understand this about his former coach in Philadelphia, Chip
Kelly. Boykin's belief that Kelly had difficulty relating to black
players was met with the kind of disingenuous, passive-aggressive shock
that explains why the topic of race often feels so intractable in this
country.
It's not all disingenuous, passive-aggressive shock necessarily. It's more, "Oh okay, so this guy says Chip Kelly is a racist. I'm sure that could be true, but his opinion doesn't necessarily serve as concrete evidence his belief is correct."
The public and the media machine largely dismissed Boykin's comments as
preposterous, a predictable reflex whenever a black athlete suggests the
white mainstream fails to understand the black experience.
I don't understand another person's experience in life, so I obviously don't understand "the black experience" which seems to be a collective experience of one group of people (a classification that I find to be oversimplifying things just a bit, but I get why it's done). To say "the white mainstream" fails to understand the black experience seems a little bit like Bryant is stating that just one group doesn't understand the black experience. I would bet that if an Asian group of people claimed to understand the black experience then Howard Bryant would think that's ridiculous. Yet here, he makes it "the white mainstream" as the group that fails to understand the black experience. This is a bit of finger-pointing at one specific group which is pretty lazy on Bryant's part.
Boykin then clarified his remarks, even though the Eagles provided all the necessary clarity in 2014 when they gave Riley Cooper a five-year, $25 million contract seven months after the receiver's use of a racist slur.
Again, I can't explain why the Eagles gave Riley Cooper this contract. Was it racism, was it the fact it wasn't a terrible contract for a 26 year old coming off a career year? I can't answer that and any attempt to answer this question is just speculation.
Boykin, the thinking went, could not possibly be correct because,
as a coach, Kelly leads dozens of highly paid black men, which is
nearly as absurd as saying the manager of a nightclub cannot be sexist
because the dancers he hires are women.
Any attempt to prove a point has to start with overstating your opposition's position. Bryant emphasizes "could not possibly" in an attempt to make it seem like Boykin's statements were taken as absolutely incorrect and not as potentially factual statements that simply lack any sort of evidentiary basis. Bryant overstates the thinking of those who don't immediately come to the conclusion Kelly is racist in order to prove that no one took Boykin's statement seriously. I'm not sure that was the case. The statement is taking seriously as an accusation, but an accusation that lacks concrete evidence, outside of Boykin's experience with Chip Kelly. Overstate the opposition's view in order to make yours seem more reasonable. That's the way to go.
So it would be unsurprising if Chip Kelly were a racist, or if he were
simply uncomfortable with young black men. It would be equally
unsurprising if neither of these things were true,
But remember, we are working under the assumption that out of these two equally unsurprising things one of them is more likely true than the other. They are equal, except the assumption leans towards one conclusion over the other. I'm not sure that's the definition of "equal" or not.
but the anxious
instinct to suggest Boykin was speaking irresponsibly ignores the fact
that the tension he described between him and his white boss was unremarkable.
What? It was normal tension that results between a boss and an employee? But of course, it can't be normal tension because Boykin was being treated differently by Kelly. The assumption of being treated differently must stand. That's how it has to be if the equally unsurprising conclusions that Kelly is or is not racist leans in the direction Bryant feels it does. He has a conclusion he must reach.
There aren't any employees in this country -- even among the white males
who represent the default position of American leadership -- who
haven't had at least one boss who didn't "get" them.
What if I told you that my employer doesn't "get" me because I'm a male? What if I told you that mostly females are hired by my employer and it only furthers my belief this is true? I'm sure Howard Bryant would think it's absolutely ridiculous that an employer would seem to favor one sex or another and dismiss my feelings. Because I'm among the default position of American leadership, so my irresponsible feelings are just the result of disliking being on an equal playing field with others and not a result of an actual true belief I have. The bottom line is people will believe a side of the Chip Kelly "is he racist or not?" story and then make up reasons why they believe it from there. It's how it goes and this includes Howard Bryant as one who does this.
An "Is Kelly a racist or isn't he?" narrative is just the lazy
masquerading as the profound, especially when Boykin never actually
called Kelly a racist.
Bryant can decorate it however he wants with a discussion of George Washington, but "Is Kelly a racist or isn't he?" is essentially the conversation he is having in this column.
The NFL already has a problem with black people, the ones who don't stay
in their lane, the ones who talk. The problem is true of football, just
as it is with Major League Baseball and dozens of other industries
across America, including the media.
I have found major sports have a problem with any person who doesn't stay in their lane and who talks too much. I'm sure since Howard Bryant has worked in dozens of other industries across American (eye roll) he knows this to be true. I can say that other industries have a problem with any person who doesn't stay in his/her lane at work and gives their opinion more than it is wanted. I understand this is a part of Howard Bryant's experience, but rest assured, this is also the experience anyone who doesn't stay in their lane at work has as well. Sometimes in an effort to be treated more fairly, it's necessary to understand that the treatment you are receiving, even though it may not seem that way, is in many ways how others are treated as well.
Every black person in America knows he must learn to navigate the white
world to advance -- but that world needn't know very much or anything
about him. It's the price of being a minority. Life isn't fair.
I can't argue with someone else's experience. Though again, I think Howard Bryant is going back to the "Is Kelly a racist or isn't he?" well and covering up for it by claiming systemic racism. Bryant is essentially making the argument Kelly is a racist because on a macro-level there is systemic racism. That's a whole other discussion that probably has very little to do with George Washington's feelings about the Massachusetts colony during the Revolutionary War.
It is why the four most important teams in the history of baseball --
the Yankees, Red Sox, Cardinals and, yes, the Dodgers of Jackie Robinson
lore -- have never hired a black manager.
To call these four teams the "most important teams in the history of baseball" seems to be confusing "important" with successful. It's how "fame" and "notoriety" seem to get confused at times as well.
If these dynamics were not at work, neither the NFL nor MLB would have
to force teams to interview minorities whenever a job comes open.
Yes, if the Dodgers, Yankees, Red Sox, and Cardinals would just hire a black manager sometime soon then MLB and NFL could do away with any type of initiative intended to help minorities get interviews as a team's head coach/manager.
What coaches don't have a problem with is Boykin's talent. There are 32
NFL teams and almost zero white starting running backs or cornerbacks.
As I said before, the whole "Well, Kelly HAS to work with these minorities because there aren't any white running backs or cornerbacks" position for why Kelly may be racist doesn't always work well for me. Yes, Kelly could still be a racist and sign or trade for non-white running backs or cornerbacks, but the point still remains that Kelly coaches these players and looks for a certain type of non-white/white running back or cornerback for his team. Kelly is looking for a certain type of running back or cornerback for his system. He's notoriously picky about players who buy into his system.
Washington disliked his workforce, but he needed it to win the war. Same goes for the NFL.
Great tie-in here. Because Washington can not choose his workforce, while Kelly has the ability to a greater extent to choose his workforce. That's what Kelly is doing and whether Kelly is choosing African-American players he can "control" or those who fit his system and personality is up for debate. Just know statements from ex-players that Kelly is sort of racist should be taken with the same grain of salt as evidence from ex-players that Kelly isn't racist. The conclusion you want to draw without further evidence one way or another is your own. Just don't draw your conclusion on this issue and act like the equally as unsurprising other conclusion is simply not just as likely. That's what Howard Bryant seems to be doing here.
Kelly might have an issue, he might not, but the routine reflex to
dismiss the obvious historical reality that people from different
racial, cultural and class backgrounds might struggle to understand one
another in the workplace is a much bigger problem than Chip Kelly ever
could be.
So the conclusion is that people in a workplace won't always get along? Howard Bryant has to go so far back as to use George Washington as an example of this? Anyone who has a job knows this is true. It turns out that everyone who doesn't understand someone else in the workplace because of a different background may or may not be racist. It's funny, because I don't understand people who come from my same background either. It's almost like people are different from each other and every misunderstanding can't be placed into a little box with a convenient label.
Showing posts with label undercomplicating things. Show all posts
Showing posts with label undercomplicating things. Show all posts
Monday, September 21, 2015
Thursday, September 10, 2015
7 comments MMQB Review: Peter's Super Bowl Pick Edition
Peter King made some observations from all 16 of the useless preseason games in last week's MMQB. He also suggested Judge Berman decide to end all of this nonsense about the Patriots deflating footballs in order to kick the can down the road and make this nonsense last longer. Peter wanted the judge to wait until after the 2015 season to rule so that way there would be a whole other five months of measuring the PSI of footballs in cold weather. Fortunately, Judge Berman did not take Peter's advice. This week, Peter talks about Aaron Rodgers and how perfect he is, makes his Super Bowl prediction, and is the 10,000th media member to recommend "Do Your Job." I think Peter wins an award or something for being the 10,000th media member to recommend this documentary, doesn't he?
Factoid I Learned this Summer That I Have Been Dying To Share With You:
Your daughter is having another big gay wedding and you want everyone to be open-minded about it while specifically referring to it as a "gay wedding" on Twitter and not just a "wedding" thereby showing you subconsciously differentiate between the two type of weddings?
This is the 10th season Mike McCarthy has coached the Packers, and the 10th season Aaron Rodgers has played for Mike McCarthy. In all that time, from January 2006 to this weekend, Rodgers has never been fined by the team. He has never been late to a meeting, a practice, a game, an off-season workout. He has never missed any of those scheduled events without permission. He has never violated curfew either in training camp or the night before any of the 197 preseason, regular-season or postseason games since McCarthy took over. He has never mouthed off to anyone, or violated any team rule to the extent that he had to be fined.
I find it hard to believe Rodgers has never mouthed off to anyone. I think his mouthing off is simply being forgotten. A lot of people aren't late to work, don't get suspended, and don't violate any rules while at work. Congrats to Aaron Rodgers and this is such a worthy note to lead off the column with. Very important information to know.
And of course other sportswriters on Twitter thought this factoid was brilliant and congratulated Peter as if he had found the Holy Grail and then managed to sell it off to an alien race which allowed him to cure cancer. And yes, a "factoid" is still a statement of questionable factual basis, so maybe Peter is lying, or he still insists on not using a dictionary before using big words.
“That is true,” Rodgers told me. “Now, in my rookie year, 2005, I did get fined once.
So as long as the time Aaron Rodgers DID get fined isn't counted, then this factoid is true. A lot of facts can be true if a person works around all the times that fact wasn't true.
I was five minutes late to a meeting. I was speeding down [Wisconsin route] 41, a little late, and I said, ‘I can either get a ticket here and be late, or I can drive normal and be late.’ I decided to be six minutes late and take the fine.”
Aaron Rodgers favors taking his medicine and staying within the law over violating the law and doing what's best for him. He's the hero we need.
There’s no really good reason to write that this morning.
Finally, we can agree. Football starts in less than a week and Peter is starting off his column with factoids about Aaron Rodgers.
I’m picking a Green Bay-Baltimore Super Bowl. Two teams that blew golden chances to meet in the Super Bowl last year, finally keeping the appointment a year later. (NFC title game last January, five minutes left: Green Bay 19, Seattle 7. AFC divisional game last January, 23 minutes left: Baltimore 28, New England 14.)
There's the whole "Well yeah, Dez Bryant caught that pass and so the Packers may not have even advanced to the NFC title game if that rule made any sense and the Cowboys had managed to punch the ball in from the two-yard line with the best running game in the NFL" argument, but I guess that should be ignored in keeping with the storyline that Peter is crafting right now.
To make that pick, I have to get over a lot of things. For Green Bay, the Jordy Nelson injury is the biggest thing—the most dangerous weapon for Rodgers on the team that scored the most points (486) in football last year...But I recall Davante Adams being in the right place at the right time for Green Bay to beat Miami last year.
Peter was worried about losing Nelson, but then he realized one time last year Davante Adams caught an important pass and this helped Peter realize Nelson is probably useless anyway.
I like the defense well enough too, despite the loss to free agency of solid corners Tramon Williams and Davon House. Maybe that’s me trying to talk my way into picking Green Bay, but I remember in the NFC title game last year what I saw in the first 55 minutes: 12 Seattle drives, seven points, 187 yards, four interceptions of Russell Wilson.
Yes, that game was against Seattle, the renowned offensively explosive team who can attack you from anywhere in their high octane passing game. Peter is worried about the Packers losing two solid corners, but points out the Packers did well against a team that isn't known for having a great passing attack (WITH those two corners on the roster at the time) and it made him feel better about the Packers secondary. Ignore the last five minutes of the game because the first part of MMQB is all about making statements and leaving information out that disputes those statements.
Baltimore? You’ll be surprised at the Ravens’ biggest challenge.
Let me guess, you think they are going to trade Joe Flacco midseason because Ozzie Newsome said, "I can see a trade or two happening this year" as an offhand comment to a reporter?
So what is the Ravens' biggest challenge? Their ONE biggest challenge?
Two, actually:
YOU GOT ME AGAIN, PETER! YOU SAID "CHALLENGE" LIKE THERE WAS ONE, THEN SURPRISED ME WITH TWO! TWO SURPRISES AROUND YOUR PICK OF THE RAVENS? I'M STANDING UP APPLAUDING YOU RIGHT NOW, BUT IF I WEREN'T, I WOULD BE ON THE EDGE OF MY SEAT WANTING TO KNOW WHAT THE SURPRISE IS!
1. The Bengals. You’d think the Ravens are significantly better over the past few years, right? Well, in the post-season, yes. But Cincinnati and Baltimore have 40 regular-season wins apiece in the past four years. The Bengals beat the Ravens in the AFC North standings in 2013 and ’14. In their past five meetings, the Bengals are 4-1 against the Ravens and have allowed Baltimore just 18.8 points a game.
And so because the Bengals have been good over the past four years and the Ravens have to play the Bengals two total times this year, this means that the Bengals will be good this year as well?
But no, Peter King is doing the whole "Two topics that are really one topic but inexplicably separated" thing he does in the "Things I Think I Think" section. Really, there is one challenge for the Ravens.
2. Baltimore has to earn home-field in the playoffs. I know: Every team wants to be at home in the playoffs, but for the Ravens the home-field edge has been huge in the John Harbaugh era. Since Harbaugh took over in 2008, Baltimore is 45-11 at home and 27-29 on the road in the regular season.
So the challenge for the Ravens isn't the Bengals, but to win their division and get homefield advantage. Let's not overcomplicate it. Also, home-field edge has been huge for the Ravens during the John Harbaugh era as long as the fact the Ravens won a Super Bowl by winning two road games or that the Ravens are 7-5 on the road in the playoffs under Harbaugh gets ignored.
The Ravens have played 15 postseason games since 2008 … only two at home. Twelve on the road, and one (the Super Bowl, against San Francisco) at a neutral site.
But it’s worn on Baltimore. Like last year. Even with a World League secondary, the Ravens held two 14-point leads at New England in the divisional round and couldn’t hang on. Imagine if the game had been in Baltimore, where the Ravens have won a Patriot-like 81 percent of their home games since 2008.
Imagine if that game had been played on an aircraft carrier in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean. How would that have affected the outcome? What about if this game was played on a field made of pillows, how could that have had an effect on the score?
I see the Ravens winning the North
Kings of the North! Flying their family banner! Fuck the Starks!
If they win the North, that’s one home playoff game at least. If they win 12 games, that should be enough for two. What they really need, though, is for the rest of the conference to get as good as the North has been in recent years, so the road to Santa Clara won’t be all on the road.
All teams want home playoff games, but I don't see why the need for the Ravens to have one is so great. They have proven they can win games on the road in the playoffs.
Regarding the other contenders:
New England. No repeat champions in the past 10 Super Bowls; I’m not big at all on picking repeat champs. Then there’s the weak secondary (minus Darrelle Revis and Super Bowl unsung hero Brandon Browner), and the Ravens-like lack of depth at receiver.
If only the Patriots had a dynamic tight end who is essentially uncoverable. Alas, they do not and we must all move on.
Seattle. I checked in with a Seahawk source Sunday night, and there’s scant optimism that strong safety Kam Chancellor—vital on the field, of course, but in the locker room too—will be in St. Louis for the opener in six days. Plus, free safety Earl Thomas, rehabbing from a torn labrum in his left shoulder, is likely to play next week but not certain. So, Seattle could face a matchup nightmare in St. Louis (last three years: Rams two wins, Seattle one in St. Louis)
A matchup nightmare! A total nightmare facing that up-and-coming Los Angeles Rams team! They are so formidable and scary. The Rams have won two games at home against the Seahawks over the last three years. If that's not having a team's number then I don't know what a small sample size is.
The Seahawks should score more,
Except for Russell Wilson, who isn't scoring at all apparently.
Indianapolis. When we last left the Colts, they were getting steamrolled on the ground for the third time in their past 20 games by the Patriots. Arthur Jones, key run-stopper up front, has been lost for the year, and they haven’t made any significant adds to the defensive front, save Kandall Langford, who’s no Haloti Ngata. If Andrew Luck can score 40 points a Sunday, I like the Colts to go far. If not, they’ll win the AFC South and be frustrated again in late January.
The Colts drafted Phillip Dorsett. Imagine how awesome Andrew Luck's MVP numbers are going to look after the season is over. Sure, Ryan Grigson could have improved the defense and just didn't like the guys available in the first round, but he's also not one to trade a first round pick for an active player in an effort to improve his team. Not at all.
Philadelphia/Dallas. Flip a coin.
You go flip a coin.
I like the Eagles better, by a bit, mostly because the Cowboys lost their best defensive back (Orlando Scandrick) for the year this preseason, and because Philadelphia scored faster this preseason than the Kardashians printed money. But there’s no insurance for Sam Bradford staying upright for the season; if he does, the Eagles are as good as anyone in the NFC, and maybe better.
It's always dumb to assume Sam Bradford is going to be healthy all year long. It's always dumb, but Peter and I do agree what could happen IF Bradford is healthy all year. And yes, I really regret counting on Bradford to be healthy in my predictions because I know it's not happening.
My playoff jumpers? (The rising teams in each conference, I mean).
Thanks for explaining, Peter. Your readers are mental midgets who didn't understand what you were saying and desperately needed you to clarify. Playoff jumpers? How can a franchise literally jump the playoffs? Without the explanation, that's how I would feel.
I think Peter lacks a certain amount of intellectual respect for his readers at times. His need to explain things can be a bit condescending. This from a guy who can't use the definition of "precocious" and "factoid" correctly, but it doesn't stop him from using those words as much as possible.
Minnesota (7-9 last year) and Miami (8-8 last year).
(throws up) It appears I agree with Peter on something else.
Regarding Miami: I haven’t seen a team in recent years with the schedule advantage the Dolphins have in the first two months. Their opening seven weeks: at Kirk Cousins (Washington), at Blake Bortles (Jacksonville), versus Tyrod Taylor (Buffalo) at home, versus Ryan Fitzpatrick (Jets) in London, bye, at Marcus Mariota (Tennessee), versus Brian Hoyer (Houston) at home.
And since when have any NFL teams been bad one season and then improved the very next season? Never, so obviously the Dolphins schedule is very easy and the great Ryan Tannehill certainly won't have to play against any good defenses like the Bills, Jets and Texans have over this span. Remember, football is only a game of matchups between each team's quarterback.
Of course, they’ve got the Patriots twice, the Eagles, Cowboys and Chargers in the last 10 games,
So it leads to something like 8-8, assuming the Dolphins lose to a team they should not lose to and then beat a team they should beat? Great, glad we talked about this.
My picks, division by division:
AFC: New England, Baltimore, Indianapolis, Kansas City.
Wild Cards: Denver, Miami.
NFC: Philadelphia, Green Bay, Atlanta, Seattle.
Wild Cards: Arizona, Dallas.
Not criticizing, just pointing out this is basically the same teams that made the playoffs last year except Atlanta will win the NFC South, Peter thinks the team that stands in the way of the Ravens making the playoffs don't even make the postseason (the Bengals), and he believes in Andy Reid so much he thinks the Chiefs win the AFC West. So there is 25% turnover among the 12 playoff teams.
Lots of leftovers after the embarrassing but not shocking (except to the NFL) total defeat in U.S. District Court on Thursday:
Clearly, some around the league don’t think Ted Wells, Jeff Pash and Goodell have the goods on Brady. They are right: The league doesn’t have the goods. There’s no proof that Brady told anyone to take air out of the footballs.
I'm just glad we got to the bottom of whether air in the amount of a few tenths of a PSI were taken out of the football or not and who knew what and when they knew it. With offensive line coaches hitting their loved ones and all that boring football stuff to focus on, I like to see important things like whether footballs used in a game back in January where the outcome wasn't in doubt had reduced air pressure in them.
There are between two and four owners, a very small cabal, down on Goodell right now to the point that they would consider joining a movement to replace him. That’s not many, especially when you consider that Goodell is on the losing streak of all commissioner losing streaks, and when you consider that 24 votes would be required to replace Goodell. Understand that many of the leading owners in the league consider that Goodell is doing their bidding, fighting for what he believes is the right thing, and also that he’s taking hits for them on fronts like domestic violence.
I always laugh when the idea of the owners replacing Goodell comes up. I think they probably should, but why do that when he's taking all the heat and making them look good? Who hates Jerry Richardson because Greg Hardy hit a woman? Nobody. Who got mad at Steve Bisciotti because the Ravens handled the Ray Rice situation poorly? A few people did and then forgot about it once Roger Goodell started fumbling around when attempting to punish Rice. Goodell is paid to be the bad guy so the owners don't have to be.
It could be that the union, smelling blood in the water, will stand firm and not give up anything in bargaining with the NFL, because the players know how weakened the NFL is right now. I doubt that will be enough for the league to just say, We’ll hand you neutral arbitration. But both sides know Goodell needs to fork over the appeal process for Brady-type cases. This solution seems logical:
Almost as logical as Peter's solution to punish Tom Brady, which was to make this whole drama get drawn out longer?
The league and players agree to a panel of three arbitrators; the arbitrators would be mutually agreed upon by the league and the union. Each time there’s an appeal of a commissioner discipline case, one of the three arbitrators would be picked randomly to hear the appeal.
So all the league and players would have to do is agree on three arbitrators? Wow, that seems easy enough considering the union doesn't trust the league and the league has no respect for the union.
In exchange, the CBA, set to expire following the 2020 season, will be extended one season, and would expire after the 2021 season. Now, the league will howl at this, saying that’s not enough of a trade with the players to give up such a valuable chip. But I would maintain this: The chip has become a poisonous one. The chip is not nearly as valuable as it once was. It’s now worth 20 cents on the dollar. Goodell has to make a save-face deal with the players, or risk the waterfall of negative press and public opinion washing over him and the league.
He doesn't care, Peter. Roger Goodell doesn't care about saving face with the players. He doesn't care about the waterfall of negative press and public opinion because everybody still watches the NFL games, buys the merchandise and the stadiums will undoubtedly be full on Thursday nights, all day Sunday and Monday nights. This makes the owners money, they are happy, which means they are happy with Goodell, so Goodell is happy and has done his job. Roger Goodell only cares about saving face or public opinion when it comes to hurting the NFL's bottom line. Otherwise, it's all noise to him as long as the money keeps rolling in.
I’ve screened NFL Network’s “Do Your Job: Bill Belichick and the 2014 New England Patriots,” an hour-long documentary that airs Wednesday on NFL Network at 8 p.m. ET. It might be the best example I’ve ever watched of how Belichick works—how he prepares players, how he prepares coaches, how he gets coaches ready to impart what players need to know to win, how he motivates players (thought there’s not a lot of that here), how he uses mysterious director of football research Ernie Adams (who is interviewed for the documentary), and how he uses so much minutiae of football knowledge to prepare for games.
I find it interesting how there is a constant presumption of secretiveness surrounding Belichick and the Patriots. To an extent that is true on the day-to-day aspects of knowing what goes in with the Patriots, but this is the second documentary in the last couple of years about the Patriots and/or Belichick where the inner workings of his team and decision-making process are examined on camera. For a guy who is really secretive and there isn't much known about how the Patriots go about their business, the public sure knows a hell of a lot more about how he runs his team than they know about how Pete Carroll runs the inner workings of his team. So they are secretive, but I think it's at the point we know more about the Patriots than many other NFL teams.
It’ll be easy for non-Patriot fans to sneer at it and say, Enough of the bleepin’ Patriots overload! But this is such a good show about football, and about the inner game of football, that if you’re a football fan you’ll be doing yourself a disservice by not at least setting the DVR to record this show.
It's still about the Patriots though. I would watch it, but if someone is tired of the Patriots, then an entire show about the team and how they just won the Super Bowl probably isn't something that sounds enticing to watch.
“Maybe the one word that isn’t in that sentence,” said Belichick in the doc, “that’s implied but not stated, is ‘Do your job well.’ Take care of the one or two three things that we’ve emphasized all week, and we’ll be okay.”
I recognize that no other NFL head coaches have had the success that Bill Belichick has had, but what is Mike McCarthy's mantra? What do we know about McCarthy and how he runs his Packers team? Not that Belichick isn't secretive, but it's growing harder for me to see this types of documentaries being introduced as if they are a brief glimpse into the world of Belichick that few others will ever see. These documentaries are a glimpse few others will see into every head coach's team, so while Belichick is secretive, there is a lot more that is known about his overall philosophies then there is known about the overall philosophies of pretty much any other NFL head coach.
Offensive coordinator Josh McDaniels confirmed the coaches showed the offense a clip of Alabama throwing the unbalanced offensive-line formation against LSU before the divisional game against Baltimore, and then explained why the play was used when it was—in the third quarter, down 14, with the season on the line. New England ran it twice and Tom Brady completed both passes on a scoring drive. ”We waited 'til the second half, purposefully so they didn’t have an opportunity at halftime to talk about it,” said McDaniels.
That is cheating to run a play that defense doesn't have to time to adjust to after they have seen it. Pure cheating. It's classless to fool the opposing team this way.
Belichick explains why he didn’t call a timeout on the Seahawks’ fateful last drive, which would have opened him to ridicule had Seattle scored and left New England to go the length of the field in 17 or 20 seconds to have a chance had Seattle scored on the play. Basically, it’s like what we all thought: Belichick saw confusion and players hurrying around on the Seattle sideline, so he wanted to take advantage of the confusion (or so it seemed) and make them snap without being fully prepared for the play.
Little did Belichick know that Russell Wilson didn't need to be prepared for the play and the confusion didn't hurt, because God was speaking to him right at that moment. Probably talking to Wilson about the benefits of Recovery Water.
Really good show.
I'm shocked Peter liked it. Shocked.
“Brady’s free!”
—A passenger in the back of a Boston-to-Denver Southwest Airline flight on Thursday, shortly after the plane landed late in the morning and when passengers switched on the phones, got wifi, and learned the news of Judge Richard Berman vacating the suspension of Tom Brady, according to passenger Abby Chin of Comcast Sports Net-New England
I didn't have a dog in this fight, but the whole "Brady is free" exclamations were a little annoying to me. He's not in jail. He was initially suspended from playing a sporting event, a game, for four games. It was probably an overreach by the commissioner, but Brady wasn't jailed while on a humanitarian mission in a foreign country. He was accused of conspiring to deflate footballs. He wasn't ever not free. If he wasn't playing football for four games, then he would have been chilling at home with his kids and wife. Let's get a little perspective.
“Now we don’t have to play what’s-his-name.”
—A kid on the Boston-to-Denver flight, once he learned Brady, and not Jimmy Garappolo, would be playing quarterback for the Patriots early in the season.
Ten years from now this kid will be in a bar talking about how he knew Jimmy G. was the right QB for the Patriots even at the age of 13 when the Pats drafted him.
Snaps played in 13 combined preseason games by three 2015 Most Valuable Player candidates:
Adrian Peterson (five games): 0.
J.J. Watt (four games): 0.
Rob Gronkowski (four games): 0.
Can we at some point, please, have a discussion about cutting the preseason from four to two games?
Hold on for a second. You made the NFL owners lose count again.
Sure, we can have the discussion about cutting down the preseason. Don't you think a conversation about gun control is probably more important though? So the owners will let Congress figure that one out and then we can talk about cutting the preseason from four to two games. The owners want to have the gun control conversation first.
The final weekend of the regular season includes New England playing at Miami on Jan. 3, 2016, at 1 p.m. In the last two New England games at Miami, it has been 84 degrees at kickoff (in December 2013) and 89 degrees at kickoff (in September 2014). The Patriots have lost both games—24-20 two years ago, 33-20 last year.
Might be a good idea for the Patriots to pray for a New Year’s cold snap in south Florida, or to think about practicing in steamy conditions, somewhere, before the game this year.
If really cold conditions make the PSI in a ball decrease, then does playing in a hot climate cause the PSI in the football to increase? If so, tell Ted Wells! Here is further proof of the Patriots cheating. They can't win football games in hot climates.
Mr. Starwood Preferred Member Travel Note of the Week
Another reason Amtrak should be the mode of transportation for more people: timeliness.
I boarded Amtrak 2158, an Acela train from New York to Boston, at about 11:55 a.m. Wednesday. Train slated to depart at 12:03 p.m. I had my laptop open, with the digital clock up. At 12:03:10, the doors to the train closed. At 12:03:33, the train started moving. We were due at Boston’s Back Bay station at 3:36 p.m. Arrival time: 3:29. My experience is that’s pretty common on the Acela (not so much on the regional trains).
Two weeks from now:
"Here is my major complaint about the Acela. It's normally on time, but there were two kids on the train who insisted on playing games on their phone. At least I assume they were games and they had the volume up at a high level where I could barely hear the important conversation I was having on my phone, so I of course had to talk louder. Everyone was annoyed at the amount of noise those two kids were making playing their game, though I honestly couldn't hear what they were saying because I was having to talk so loud to hear my conversation. Also, if a train is supposed to be in Boston at 2:30pm..."
Ten Things I Think I Think
2. I think these were the stories of cutdown weekend in the NFL:
a. Tim Tebow is not one of 1,696 active players in the National Football League. The four NFL people to get rid of Tebow—John Elway, Rex Ryan (and, in part, Mike Tannenbaum), Bill Belichick, Chip Kelly—should give you an idea of the odds he faces in returning to the NFL.
This doesn't include a successful head coach like John Fox who was part of getting rid of Tebow too. At a certain point, that's a lot of smart people who seem to agree.
He’s just not an accurate-enough thrower right now, but as Kelly told him, he needs to play the position in games, and the only place for him to do that now is in the Canadian Football League. If Tebow is serious about continuing his career in the NFL, he should be all about seeking a job in the CFL.
Real question: If Tebow is so dedicated to becoming an NFL quarterback, which isn't something I would normally doubt, then is it overly-prideful of him to not seek a job with the CFL in an effort to get back to the NFL eventually? Doesn't this show he isn't quite as dedicated to becoming an NFL quarterback as he claims to be? He wants to be an NFL quarterback and will work for it, but yeah, he's not going to do something like play in the CFL because that's below him, even if it is a way to where he could eventually get back in the NFL. We have heard all about how dedicated Tebow is, but is he dedicated when he's been told, "Here's the path you need to take" and refuses to take that path? Tebow is serious about playing quarterback in the NFL. He's not serious about playing quarterback in any other league that isn't the NFL to get there. That's a bit diva-like, isn't it? Especially when really good college quarterbacks are currently in the CFL. Somehow other quarterbacks swallow their pride and accept a job playing quarterback in the CFL, because they love to play quarterback and love to play football. Does Tebow like playing football or does he just like playing football in the NFL?
c. Tyrod Taylor is the quarterback of the Bills, and Matt Cassel is on the street. When the offseason began, Vegas odds (just kidding) had Cassel winning the starting job, E.J. Manuel the likely number two, and Tyrod Taylor fighting to fend off the rest of all available quarterbacks for number three. Taylor’s versatility and pleasantly surprising arm strength in camp won him the job. Now Cassel is hoping for a backup job somewhere else, and Houston (as Mike Florio reported Saturday) is a logical landing spot.
Houston is the landing spot for ex-Patriots backup quarterbacks who fooled other NFL teams into thinking they were real starting quarterbacks. Somebody has to make it stop.
d. The trade for Kelcie McCray shows how serious the Kam Chancellor/AWOL situation is in Seattle. Clearly, the Seahawks are planning to play without Chancellor. That’s a serious situation. Read Greg Bishop’s enlightening story in this week’s Sports Illustrated to see for yourself how much of a leader and locker-room and on-field factor Chancellor is. But he wants to re-do his contract with three years left, and GM John Schneider isn’t willing to budge, for now, on at least making Chancellor’s contract increasingly guaranteed.
While Peter was gnashing his teeth and worrying about Russell Wilson not being a Seahawk after this season, which again at the time was a ridiculous thought on par with "Are the Ravens going to let Joe Flacco go in free agency?," Kam Chancellor is the real Seahawks player who has the contractual issues.
g. Andy Levitre, two years after being the highest-paid guard ever by Tennessee, got flipped to Atlanta for a sixth-round pick next year, plus a little more. Levitre should start for the Falcons, after costing Tennessee $1,015,625 per start in the past two years. (Do the division: $32.5 million, 32 starts.)
So Peter is going to eviscerate Levitre on a weekly basis now, right? He was stealing money from the Titans without contributing and ended up on the bench for the 2015 season. Levitre signed with the Titans and then completely didn't come through as he was supposed to, so much so that the Titans traded him. Under the Josh Freeman rule, it's time to eviscerate Levitre, especially if he doesn't start for the Falcons. I guess there is a difference in a guy getting paid $32.5 million to start over two seasons and a guy getting paid $2 million for one season that I'm just not aware of.
I'll never totally understand Peter's hatred for Josh Freeman.
i. One of the game’s best guards, Kyle Long, moves outside to tackle...A month ago, though, in Bears’ camp, Long told me he didn’t want to move, saying:“They’ll have to get a tractor to move me outside to tackle. I’d rather get in a fist fight in a phone booth [at guard] any day. Those guys outside, there’s too much space. Too scary out there.” Well now.
These are the guys who are blocking for Jay Cutler and he's the one with the bad attitude all the time. His tackle doesn't want to protect him at that spot on the offensive line because it's "too scary." I can't imagine why Cutler is in a foul mood all the time.
5. I think this was the headline of the week in the NFL, from the New York Post, on Sunday, after the Eagles cut Tim Tebow: “GOD MAN OUT.”
Peter expected something better than this? Why would he?
8. I think Carson Palmer has some interesting comments about football preparation.
On the air pressure he prefers in footballs: “The air is … we never mess with the air. Whatever is legal, he’s by the book. I never notice [if it’s 12.5 or 13.5 psi], I don’t know the difference but if it was low it would be great, obviously. The softer the ball, the easier it is to grip and throw a tighter spiral, especially if it’s wet, especially if it’s windy. If it's windy that throws a whole new angle at it. I’ll play in snow and rain but when it gets to 40- and 50-mph winds, if you can grab the ball a little bit better, it cuts the air better. If it’s rainy you can grip it a little better but between 12.5 and 13.5, I wouldn’t know.”
So what I'm hearing is that Carson Palmer likes a softer ball and has no idea whether the ball he throws has too much or too little air in it, but he definitely prefers a softer ball if possible. I think Roger Goodell should begin an investigation immediately into whether Carson Palmer has knowledge of football deflating. Turn over your phone, Carson!
On Brady: “It’s been so media-overload, when stuff like that starts happening, I just can’t even turn on ESPN. Rules are the rules. If the balls were below, the balls were below. There’s a reason.
Right, but Carson Palmer, who throws footballs for a living, just claimed he has no idea if a ball is over or under-inflated according to the NFL rules. He states he has no idea what the PSI of the ball is, so rules are rules, but if the balls were below, then the balls were below. He's missing the basic question of whether the balls were below. Tom Brady is expected to know the exact PSI of a ball even though Carson Palmer admits he wouldn't know the exact PSI of a ball unless he was told.
9. I think if you have a spare $18.88, a good investment that might yield a pretty great weekend is available at Weekend With The 88s. Carolina tight end Greg Olsen wears 88, and NASCAR driver Dale Earnhardt Jr. drives the number 88 car and is based in nearby Concord, N.C. If you win, you get a tour of Earnhardt’s garage and Bank of America Stadium on Saturday, Oct. 31; a helicopter ride to Earnhardt’s race on Sunday, and sideline passes and game tickets to the Panthers-Colts game in Charlotte on Monday night, Nov. 2. The fund-raiser benefits Levine Children’s Hospital in Charlotte, with is near to Olsen’s heart.
I see what you did there, Peter. Very tasteful. Did all of the kind words about Dr. Z and how much he is missed by his colleagues make his wife speechless? A fund raiser at Levine is close to Olsen's heart. This isn't egregious or anything, but considering what Olsen's son went through it's just another example of Peter writing something that isn't in the best of taste. Who cares though? How many people has Greg Olsen killed?
In 2012, Olsen’s son T.J. was born with a non-functioning left side of his heart, which required surgery, and he spent 40 days getting treatment there.
See, it's close to Olsen's heart because his son's heart didn't work! Get it? His son spent 40 days in the hospital getting his heart repaired and fundraisers at Levine Children's Hospital are close to Olsen's heart. Oh no! Another unintentional mini-gaffe from Peter. He doesn't intend to write these things, but they just happen.
10. I think these are my non-football thoughts of the week:
c. Jayson Stark with the MLB Factoid of the Year: Bryce Harper scored four runs Thursday for the Nationals without swinging at a pitch.
d. You can look it up. Four at-bats against Atlanta. Sixteen balls, four called strikes, four walks. Four runs and one RBI, and he never swung in 20 pitches.
This was against the Braves. The fact Bryce Harper had to actually step in the batter's box means this was unimpressive. I could score four runs against the Braves' pitching without even leaving the dugout.
e. Great read by ESPN.com’s Israel Gutierrez on a current event in his life.
Peter thinks Gutierrez is having a "gay wedding."
h. A bad day, by the way, for the Christian Hackenberg-as-top-overall-2016-pick crowd.
Christian Hackenberg will be the top pick in 2016 in the same way that Jake Locker was going to be the top pick in 2010 or 2011. Just ignore his progression as a quarterback in college and convince yourself to see those things that you want to see.
i. Regarding Matt Harvey and the Mets and James Andrews and the innings limit they’re fussing about: Why doesn’t Harvey have an MRI done right now, to see if his Tommy John-repaired elbow is in perfect condition? If it isn’t, then the innings limit seems wise. If the elbow looks fine, why not have a reasonable discussion about whether he should pitch as he’s normally pitching now?
j. I’m interested in hearing from an orthopedist, particularly one who has worked on pitching elbows, to see if that idea is reasonable, or malarkey.
I'm not an orthopedist, but I don't know if a doctor can look at an MRI and start to see a potential tear or problem in Harvey's elbow that he hasn't started to feel as of yet. I don't think elbows are like tread on tires where you can see how much it has been used and how much more it has left in it. I could be wrong about what an MRI shows regarding wear on an elbow, but this MRI idea sounds like a bad precedent as well. A precedent I probably wouldn't want to set if I were Matt Harvey.
l. Beernerdness: So how was the MMQB Saison? Really, really good. Harpoon brewer Steve Theoharides took great care to brew a classic Saison—yellow, cloudy, flavorful, with a hint of banana and clove (don’t laugh; those are great hints of tastes in a beer).
Basically it takes like a fruity beer. Peter loves himself some beer that just doesn't taste like beer, but tastes like a cocktail mixed with beer. I don't mind a few occasionally, but Peter doesn't seem to drink anything but beer that has hints of fruit in it.
The Adieu Haiku
My picks stink. So don’t
get ticked if it’s Bills-Niners.
Berman Super Bowl.
I'm not sure I understand this reference to Chris Berman or want to understand the reference. I do understand the Adieu Haiku stinks worse than Peter's Super Bowl pick.
Factoid I Learned this Summer That I Have Been Dying To Share With You:
Your daughter is having another big gay wedding and you want everyone to be open-minded about it while specifically referring to it as a "gay wedding" on Twitter and not just a "wedding" thereby showing you subconsciously differentiate between the two type of weddings?
This is the 10th season Mike McCarthy has coached the Packers, and the 10th season Aaron Rodgers has played for Mike McCarthy. In all that time, from January 2006 to this weekend, Rodgers has never been fined by the team. He has never been late to a meeting, a practice, a game, an off-season workout. He has never missed any of those scheduled events without permission. He has never violated curfew either in training camp or the night before any of the 197 preseason, regular-season or postseason games since McCarthy took over. He has never mouthed off to anyone, or violated any team rule to the extent that he had to be fined.
I find it hard to believe Rodgers has never mouthed off to anyone. I think his mouthing off is simply being forgotten. A lot of people aren't late to work, don't get suspended, and don't violate any rules while at work. Congrats to Aaron Rodgers and this is such a worthy note to lead off the column with. Very important information to know.
And of course other sportswriters on Twitter thought this factoid was brilliant and congratulated Peter as if he had found the Holy Grail and then managed to sell it off to an alien race which allowed him to cure cancer. And yes, a "factoid" is still a statement of questionable factual basis, so maybe Peter is lying, or he still insists on not using a dictionary before using big words.
“That is true,” Rodgers told me. “Now, in my rookie year, 2005, I did get fined once.
So as long as the time Aaron Rodgers DID get fined isn't counted, then this factoid is true. A lot of facts can be true if a person works around all the times that fact wasn't true.
I was five minutes late to a meeting. I was speeding down [Wisconsin route] 41, a little late, and I said, ‘I can either get a ticket here and be late, or I can drive normal and be late.’ I decided to be six minutes late and take the fine.”
Aaron Rodgers favors taking his medicine and staying within the law over violating the law and doing what's best for him. He's the hero we need.
There’s no really good reason to write that this morning.
Finally, we can agree. Football starts in less than a week and Peter is starting off his column with factoids about Aaron Rodgers.
I’m picking a Green Bay-Baltimore Super Bowl. Two teams that blew golden chances to meet in the Super Bowl last year, finally keeping the appointment a year later. (NFC title game last January, five minutes left: Green Bay 19, Seattle 7. AFC divisional game last January, 23 minutes left: Baltimore 28, New England 14.)
There's the whole "Well yeah, Dez Bryant caught that pass and so the Packers may not have even advanced to the NFC title game if that rule made any sense and the Cowboys had managed to punch the ball in from the two-yard line with the best running game in the NFL" argument, but I guess that should be ignored in keeping with the storyline that Peter is crafting right now.
To make that pick, I have to get over a lot of things. For Green Bay, the Jordy Nelson injury is the biggest thing—the most dangerous weapon for Rodgers on the team that scored the most points (486) in football last year...But I recall Davante Adams being in the right place at the right time for Green Bay to beat Miami last year.
Peter was worried about losing Nelson, but then he realized one time last year Davante Adams caught an important pass and this helped Peter realize Nelson is probably useless anyway.
I like the defense well enough too, despite the loss to free agency of solid corners Tramon Williams and Davon House. Maybe that’s me trying to talk my way into picking Green Bay, but I remember in the NFC title game last year what I saw in the first 55 minutes: 12 Seattle drives, seven points, 187 yards, four interceptions of Russell Wilson.
Yes, that game was against Seattle, the renowned offensively explosive team who can attack you from anywhere in their high octane passing game. Peter is worried about the Packers losing two solid corners, but points out the Packers did well against a team that isn't known for having a great passing attack (WITH those two corners on the roster at the time) and it made him feel better about the Packers secondary. Ignore the last five minutes of the game because the first part of MMQB is all about making statements and leaving information out that disputes those statements.
Baltimore? You’ll be surprised at the Ravens’ biggest challenge.
Let me guess, you think they are going to trade Joe Flacco midseason because Ozzie Newsome said, "I can see a trade or two happening this year" as an offhand comment to a reporter?
So what is the Ravens' biggest challenge? Their ONE biggest challenge?
Two, actually:
YOU GOT ME AGAIN, PETER! YOU SAID "CHALLENGE" LIKE THERE WAS ONE, THEN SURPRISED ME WITH TWO! TWO SURPRISES AROUND YOUR PICK OF THE RAVENS? I'M STANDING UP APPLAUDING YOU RIGHT NOW, BUT IF I WEREN'T, I WOULD BE ON THE EDGE OF MY SEAT WANTING TO KNOW WHAT THE SURPRISE IS!
1. The Bengals. You’d think the Ravens are significantly better over the past few years, right? Well, in the post-season, yes. But Cincinnati and Baltimore have 40 regular-season wins apiece in the past four years. The Bengals beat the Ravens in the AFC North standings in 2013 and ’14. In their past five meetings, the Bengals are 4-1 against the Ravens and have allowed Baltimore just 18.8 points a game.
And so because the Bengals have been good over the past four years and the Ravens have to play the Bengals two total times this year, this means that the Bengals will be good this year as well?
But no, Peter King is doing the whole "Two topics that are really one topic but inexplicably separated" thing he does in the "Things I Think I Think" section. Really, there is one challenge for the Ravens.
2. Baltimore has to earn home-field in the playoffs. I know: Every team wants to be at home in the playoffs, but for the Ravens the home-field edge has been huge in the John Harbaugh era. Since Harbaugh took over in 2008, Baltimore is 45-11 at home and 27-29 on the road in the regular season.
So the challenge for the Ravens isn't the Bengals, but to win their division and get homefield advantage. Let's not overcomplicate it. Also, home-field edge has been huge for the Ravens during the John Harbaugh era as long as the fact the Ravens won a Super Bowl by winning two road games or that the Ravens are 7-5 on the road in the playoffs under Harbaugh gets ignored.
The Ravens have played 15 postseason games since 2008 … only two at home. Twelve on the road, and one (the Super Bowl, against San Francisco) at a neutral site.
But it’s worn on Baltimore. Like last year. Even with a World League secondary, the Ravens held two 14-point leads at New England in the divisional round and couldn’t hang on. Imagine if the game had been in Baltimore, where the Ravens have won a Patriot-like 81 percent of their home games since 2008.
Imagine if that game had been played on an aircraft carrier in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean. How would that have affected the outcome? What about if this game was played on a field made of pillows, how could that have had an effect on the score?
I see the Ravens winning the North
Kings of the North! Flying their family banner! Fuck the Starks!
If they win the North, that’s one home playoff game at least. If they win 12 games, that should be enough for two. What they really need, though, is for the rest of the conference to get as good as the North has been in recent years, so the road to Santa Clara won’t be all on the road.
All teams want home playoff games, but I don't see why the need for the Ravens to have one is so great. They have proven they can win games on the road in the playoffs.
Regarding the other contenders:
New England. No repeat champions in the past 10 Super Bowls; I’m not big at all on picking repeat champs. Then there’s the weak secondary (minus Darrelle Revis and Super Bowl unsung hero Brandon Browner), and the Ravens-like lack of depth at receiver.
If only the Patriots had a dynamic tight end who is essentially uncoverable. Alas, they do not and we must all move on.
Seattle. I checked in with a Seahawk source Sunday night, and there’s scant optimism that strong safety Kam Chancellor—vital on the field, of course, but in the locker room too—will be in St. Louis for the opener in six days. Plus, free safety Earl Thomas, rehabbing from a torn labrum in his left shoulder, is likely to play next week but not certain. So, Seattle could face a matchup nightmare in St. Louis (last three years: Rams two wins, Seattle one in St. Louis)
A matchup nightmare! A total nightmare facing that up-and-coming Los Angeles Rams team! They are so formidable and scary. The Rams have won two games at home against the Seahawks over the last three years. If that's not having a team's number then I don't know what a small sample size is.
The Seahawks should score more,
Except for Russell Wilson, who isn't scoring at all apparently.
Indianapolis. When we last left the Colts, they were getting steamrolled on the ground for the third time in their past 20 games by the Patriots. Arthur Jones, key run-stopper up front, has been lost for the year, and they haven’t made any significant adds to the defensive front, save Kandall Langford, who’s no Haloti Ngata. If Andrew Luck can score 40 points a Sunday, I like the Colts to go far. If not, they’ll win the AFC South and be frustrated again in late January.
The Colts drafted Phillip Dorsett. Imagine how awesome Andrew Luck's MVP numbers are going to look after the season is over. Sure, Ryan Grigson could have improved the defense and just didn't like the guys available in the first round, but he's also not one to trade a first round pick for an active player in an effort to improve his team. Not at all.
Philadelphia/Dallas. Flip a coin.
You go flip a coin.
I like the Eagles better, by a bit, mostly because the Cowboys lost their best defensive back (Orlando Scandrick) for the year this preseason, and because Philadelphia scored faster this preseason than the Kardashians printed money. But there’s no insurance for Sam Bradford staying upright for the season; if he does, the Eagles are as good as anyone in the NFC, and maybe better.
It's always dumb to assume Sam Bradford is going to be healthy all year long. It's always dumb, but Peter and I do agree what could happen IF Bradford is healthy all year. And yes, I really regret counting on Bradford to be healthy in my predictions because I know it's not happening.
My playoff jumpers? (The rising teams in each conference, I mean).
Thanks for explaining, Peter. Your readers are mental midgets who didn't understand what you were saying and desperately needed you to clarify. Playoff jumpers? How can a franchise literally jump the playoffs? Without the explanation, that's how I would feel.
I think Peter lacks a certain amount of intellectual respect for his readers at times. His need to explain things can be a bit condescending. This from a guy who can't use the definition of "precocious" and "factoid" correctly, but it doesn't stop him from using those words as much as possible.
Minnesota (7-9 last year) and Miami (8-8 last year).
(throws up) It appears I agree with Peter on something else.
Regarding Miami: I haven’t seen a team in recent years with the schedule advantage the Dolphins have in the first two months. Their opening seven weeks: at Kirk Cousins (Washington), at Blake Bortles (Jacksonville), versus Tyrod Taylor (Buffalo) at home, versus Ryan Fitzpatrick (Jets) in London, bye, at Marcus Mariota (Tennessee), versus Brian Hoyer (Houston) at home.
And since when have any NFL teams been bad one season and then improved the very next season? Never, so obviously the Dolphins schedule is very easy and the great Ryan Tannehill certainly won't have to play against any good defenses like the Bills, Jets and Texans have over this span. Remember, football is only a game of matchups between each team's quarterback.
Of course, they’ve got the Patriots twice, the Eagles, Cowboys and Chargers in the last 10 games,
So it leads to something like 8-8, assuming the Dolphins lose to a team they should not lose to and then beat a team they should beat? Great, glad we talked about this.
My picks, division by division:
AFC: New England, Baltimore, Indianapolis, Kansas City.
Wild Cards: Denver, Miami.
NFC: Philadelphia, Green Bay, Atlanta, Seattle.
Wild Cards: Arizona, Dallas.
Not criticizing, just pointing out this is basically the same teams that made the playoffs last year except Atlanta will win the NFC South, Peter thinks the team that stands in the way of the Ravens making the playoffs don't even make the postseason (the Bengals), and he believes in Andy Reid so much he thinks the Chiefs win the AFC West. So there is 25% turnover among the 12 playoff teams.
Lots of leftovers after the embarrassing but not shocking (except to the NFL) total defeat in U.S. District Court on Thursday:
Clearly, some around the league don’t think Ted Wells, Jeff Pash and Goodell have the goods on Brady. They are right: The league doesn’t have the goods. There’s no proof that Brady told anyone to take air out of the footballs.
I'm just glad we got to the bottom of whether air in the amount of a few tenths of a PSI were taken out of the football or not and who knew what and when they knew it. With offensive line coaches hitting their loved ones and all that boring football stuff to focus on, I like to see important things like whether footballs used in a game back in January where the outcome wasn't in doubt had reduced air pressure in them.
There are between two and four owners, a very small cabal, down on Goodell right now to the point that they would consider joining a movement to replace him. That’s not many, especially when you consider that Goodell is on the losing streak of all commissioner losing streaks, and when you consider that 24 votes would be required to replace Goodell. Understand that many of the leading owners in the league consider that Goodell is doing their bidding, fighting for what he believes is the right thing, and also that he’s taking hits for them on fronts like domestic violence.
I always laugh when the idea of the owners replacing Goodell comes up. I think they probably should, but why do that when he's taking all the heat and making them look good? Who hates Jerry Richardson because Greg Hardy hit a woman? Nobody. Who got mad at Steve Bisciotti because the Ravens handled the Ray Rice situation poorly? A few people did and then forgot about it once Roger Goodell started fumbling around when attempting to punish Rice. Goodell is paid to be the bad guy so the owners don't have to be.
It could be that the union, smelling blood in the water, will stand firm and not give up anything in bargaining with the NFL, because the players know how weakened the NFL is right now. I doubt that will be enough for the league to just say, We’ll hand you neutral arbitration. But both sides know Goodell needs to fork over the appeal process for Brady-type cases. This solution seems logical:
Almost as logical as Peter's solution to punish Tom Brady, which was to make this whole drama get drawn out longer?
The league and players agree to a panel of three arbitrators; the arbitrators would be mutually agreed upon by the league and the union. Each time there’s an appeal of a commissioner discipline case, one of the three arbitrators would be picked randomly to hear the appeal.
So all the league and players would have to do is agree on three arbitrators? Wow, that seems easy enough considering the union doesn't trust the league and the league has no respect for the union.
In exchange, the CBA, set to expire following the 2020 season, will be extended one season, and would expire after the 2021 season. Now, the league will howl at this, saying that’s not enough of a trade with the players to give up such a valuable chip. But I would maintain this: The chip has become a poisonous one. The chip is not nearly as valuable as it once was. It’s now worth 20 cents on the dollar. Goodell has to make a save-face deal with the players, or risk the waterfall of negative press and public opinion washing over him and the league.
He doesn't care, Peter. Roger Goodell doesn't care about saving face with the players. He doesn't care about the waterfall of negative press and public opinion because everybody still watches the NFL games, buys the merchandise and the stadiums will undoubtedly be full on Thursday nights, all day Sunday and Monday nights. This makes the owners money, they are happy, which means they are happy with Goodell, so Goodell is happy and has done his job. Roger Goodell only cares about saving face or public opinion when it comes to hurting the NFL's bottom line. Otherwise, it's all noise to him as long as the money keeps rolling in.
I’ve screened NFL Network’s “Do Your Job: Bill Belichick and the 2014 New England Patriots,” an hour-long documentary that airs Wednesday on NFL Network at 8 p.m. ET. It might be the best example I’ve ever watched of how Belichick works—how he prepares players, how he prepares coaches, how he gets coaches ready to impart what players need to know to win, how he motivates players (thought there’s not a lot of that here), how he uses mysterious director of football research Ernie Adams (who is interviewed for the documentary), and how he uses so much minutiae of football knowledge to prepare for games.
I find it interesting how there is a constant presumption of secretiveness surrounding Belichick and the Patriots. To an extent that is true on the day-to-day aspects of knowing what goes in with the Patriots, but this is the second documentary in the last couple of years about the Patriots and/or Belichick where the inner workings of his team and decision-making process are examined on camera. For a guy who is really secretive and there isn't much known about how the Patriots go about their business, the public sure knows a hell of a lot more about how he runs his team than they know about how Pete Carroll runs the inner workings of his team. So they are secretive, but I think it's at the point we know more about the Patriots than many other NFL teams.
It’ll be easy for non-Patriot fans to sneer at it and say, Enough of the bleepin’ Patriots overload! But this is such a good show about football, and about the inner game of football, that if you’re a football fan you’ll be doing yourself a disservice by not at least setting the DVR to record this show.
It's still about the Patriots though. I would watch it, but if someone is tired of the Patriots, then an entire show about the team and how they just won the Super Bowl probably isn't something that sounds enticing to watch.
“Maybe the one word that isn’t in that sentence,” said Belichick in the doc, “that’s implied but not stated, is ‘Do your job well.’ Take care of the one or two three things that we’ve emphasized all week, and we’ll be okay.”
I recognize that no other NFL head coaches have had the success that Bill Belichick has had, but what is Mike McCarthy's mantra? What do we know about McCarthy and how he runs his Packers team? Not that Belichick isn't secretive, but it's growing harder for me to see this types of documentaries being introduced as if they are a brief glimpse into the world of Belichick that few others will ever see. These documentaries are a glimpse few others will see into every head coach's team, so while Belichick is secretive, there is a lot more that is known about his overall philosophies then there is known about the overall philosophies of pretty much any other NFL head coach.
Offensive coordinator Josh McDaniels confirmed the coaches showed the offense a clip of Alabama throwing the unbalanced offensive-line formation against LSU before the divisional game against Baltimore, and then explained why the play was used when it was—in the third quarter, down 14, with the season on the line. New England ran it twice and Tom Brady completed both passes on a scoring drive. ”We waited 'til the second half, purposefully so they didn’t have an opportunity at halftime to talk about it,” said McDaniels.
That is cheating to run a play that defense doesn't have to time to adjust to after they have seen it. Pure cheating. It's classless to fool the opposing team this way.
Belichick explains why he didn’t call a timeout on the Seahawks’ fateful last drive, which would have opened him to ridicule had Seattle scored and left New England to go the length of the field in 17 or 20 seconds to have a chance had Seattle scored on the play. Basically, it’s like what we all thought: Belichick saw confusion and players hurrying around on the Seattle sideline, so he wanted to take advantage of the confusion (or so it seemed) and make them snap without being fully prepared for the play.
Little did Belichick know that Russell Wilson didn't need to be prepared for the play and the confusion didn't hurt, because God was speaking to him right at that moment. Probably talking to Wilson about the benefits of Recovery Water.
Really good show.
I'm shocked Peter liked it. Shocked.
“Brady’s free!”
—A passenger in the back of a Boston-to-Denver Southwest Airline flight on Thursday, shortly after the plane landed late in the morning and when passengers switched on the phones, got wifi, and learned the news of Judge Richard Berman vacating the suspension of Tom Brady, according to passenger Abby Chin of Comcast Sports Net-New England
I didn't have a dog in this fight, but the whole "Brady is free" exclamations were a little annoying to me. He's not in jail. He was initially suspended from playing a sporting event, a game, for four games. It was probably an overreach by the commissioner, but Brady wasn't jailed while on a humanitarian mission in a foreign country. He was accused of conspiring to deflate footballs. He wasn't ever not free. If he wasn't playing football for four games, then he would have been chilling at home with his kids and wife. Let's get a little perspective.
“Now we don’t have to play what’s-his-name.”
—A kid on the Boston-to-Denver flight, once he learned Brady, and not Jimmy Garappolo, would be playing quarterback for the Patriots early in the season.
Ten years from now this kid will be in a bar talking about how he knew Jimmy G. was the right QB for the Patriots even at the age of 13 when the Pats drafted him.
Snaps played in 13 combined preseason games by three 2015 Most Valuable Player candidates:
Adrian Peterson (five games): 0.
J.J. Watt (four games): 0.
Rob Gronkowski (four games): 0.
Can we at some point, please, have a discussion about cutting the preseason from four to two games?
Hold on for a second. You made the NFL owners lose count again.
Sure, we can have the discussion about cutting down the preseason. Don't you think a conversation about gun control is probably more important though? So the owners will let Congress figure that one out and then we can talk about cutting the preseason from four to two games. The owners want to have the gun control conversation first.
The final weekend of the regular season includes New England playing at Miami on Jan. 3, 2016, at 1 p.m. In the last two New England games at Miami, it has been 84 degrees at kickoff (in December 2013) and 89 degrees at kickoff (in September 2014). The Patriots have lost both games—24-20 two years ago, 33-20 last year.
Might be a good idea for the Patriots to pray for a New Year’s cold snap in south Florida, or to think about practicing in steamy conditions, somewhere, before the game this year.
If really cold conditions make the PSI in a ball decrease, then does playing in a hot climate cause the PSI in the football to increase? If so, tell Ted Wells! Here is further proof of the Patriots cheating. They can't win football games in hot climates.
Mr. Starwood Preferred Member Travel Note of the Week
Another reason Amtrak should be the mode of transportation for more people: timeliness.
I boarded Amtrak 2158, an Acela train from New York to Boston, at about 11:55 a.m. Wednesday. Train slated to depart at 12:03 p.m. I had my laptop open, with the digital clock up. At 12:03:10, the doors to the train closed. At 12:03:33, the train started moving. We were due at Boston’s Back Bay station at 3:36 p.m. Arrival time: 3:29. My experience is that’s pretty common on the Acela (not so much on the regional trains).
Two weeks from now:
"Here is my major complaint about the Acela. It's normally on time, but there were two kids on the train who insisted on playing games on their phone. At least I assume they were games and they had the volume up at a high level where I could barely hear the important conversation I was having on my phone, so I of course had to talk louder. Everyone was annoyed at the amount of noise those two kids were making playing their game, though I honestly couldn't hear what they were saying because I was having to talk so loud to hear my conversation. Also, if a train is supposed to be in Boston at 2:30pm..."
Ten Things I Think I Think
2. I think these were the stories of cutdown weekend in the NFL:
a. Tim Tebow is not one of 1,696 active players in the National Football League. The four NFL people to get rid of Tebow—John Elway, Rex Ryan (and, in part, Mike Tannenbaum), Bill Belichick, Chip Kelly—should give you an idea of the odds he faces in returning to the NFL.
This doesn't include a successful head coach like John Fox who was part of getting rid of Tebow too. At a certain point, that's a lot of smart people who seem to agree.
He’s just not an accurate-enough thrower right now, but as Kelly told him, he needs to play the position in games, and the only place for him to do that now is in the Canadian Football League. If Tebow is serious about continuing his career in the NFL, he should be all about seeking a job in the CFL.
Real question: If Tebow is so dedicated to becoming an NFL quarterback, which isn't something I would normally doubt, then is it overly-prideful of him to not seek a job with the CFL in an effort to get back to the NFL eventually? Doesn't this show he isn't quite as dedicated to becoming an NFL quarterback as he claims to be? He wants to be an NFL quarterback and will work for it, but yeah, he's not going to do something like play in the CFL because that's below him, even if it is a way to where he could eventually get back in the NFL. We have heard all about how dedicated Tebow is, but is he dedicated when he's been told, "Here's the path you need to take" and refuses to take that path? Tebow is serious about playing quarterback in the NFL. He's not serious about playing quarterback in any other league that isn't the NFL to get there. That's a bit diva-like, isn't it? Especially when really good college quarterbacks are currently in the CFL. Somehow other quarterbacks swallow their pride and accept a job playing quarterback in the CFL, because they love to play quarterback and love to play football. Does Tebow like playing football or does he just like playing football in the NFL?
c. Tyrod Taylor is the quarterback of the Bills, and Matt Cassel is on the street. When the offseason began, Vegas odds (just kidding) had Cassel winning the starting job, E.J. Manuel the likely number two, and Tyrod Taylor fighting to fend off the rest of all available quarterbacks for number three. Taylor’s versatility and pleasantly surprising arm strength in camp won him the job. Now Cassel is hoping for a backup job somewhere else, and Houston (as Mike Florio reported Saturday) is a logical landing spot.
Houston is the landing spot for ex-Patriots backup quarterbacks who fooled other NFL teams into thinking they were real starting quarterbacks. Somebody has to make it stop.
d. The trade for Kelcie McCray shows how serious the Kam Chancellor/AWOL situation is in Seattle. Clearly, the Seahawks are planning to play without Chancellor. That’s a serious situation. Read Greg Bishop’s enlightening story in this week’s Sports Illustrated to see for yourself how much of a leader and locker-room and on-field factor Chancellor is. But he wants to re-do his contract with three years left, and GM John Schneider isn’t willing to budge, for now, on at least making Chancellor’s contract increasingly guaranteed.
While Peter was gnashing his teeth and worrying about Russell Wilson not being a Seahawk after this season, which again at the time was a ridiculous thought on par with "Are the Ravens going to let Joe Flacco go in free agency?," Kam Chancellor is the real Seahawks player who has the contractual issues.
g. Andy Levitre, two years after being the highest-paid guard ever by Tennessee, got flipped to Atlanta for a sixth-round pick next year, plus a little more. Levitre should start for the Falcons, after costing Tennessee $1,015,625 per start in the past two years. (Do the division: $32.5 million, 32 starts.)
So Peter is going to eviscerate Levitre on a weekly basis now, right? He was stealing money from the Titans without contributing and ended up on the bench for the 2015 season. Levitre signed with the Titans and then completely didn't come through as he was supposed to, so much so that the Titans traded him. Under the Josh Freeman rule, it's time to eviscerate Levitre, especially if he doesn't start for the Falcons. I guess there is a difference in a guy getting paid $32.5 million to start over two seasons and a guy getting paid $2 million for one season that I'm just not aware of.
I'll never totally understand Peter's hatred for Josh Freeman.
i. One of the game’s best guards, Kyle Long, moves outside to tackle...A month ago, though, in Bears’ camp, Long told me he didn’t want to move, saying:“They’ll have to get a tractor to move me outside to tackle. I’d rather get in a fist fight in a phone booth [at guard] any day. Those guys outside, there’s too much space. Too scary out there.” Well now.
These are the guys who are blocking for Jay Cutler and he's the one with the bad attitude all the time. His tackle doesn't want to protect him at that spot on the offensive line because it's "too scary." I can't imagine why Cutler is in a foul mood all the time.
5. I think this was the headline of the week in the NFL, from the New York Post, on Sunday, after the Eagles cut Tim Tebow: “GOD MAN OUT.”
Peter expected something better than this? Why would he?
8. I think Carson Palmer has some interesting comments about football preparation.
On the air pressure he prefers in footballs: “The air is … we never mess with the air. Whatever is legal, he’s by the book. I never notice [if it’s 12.5 or 13.5 psi], I don’t know the difference but if it was low it would be great, obviously. The softer the ball, the easier it is to grip and throw a tighter spiral, especially if it’s wet, especially if it’s windy. If it's windy that throws a whole new angle at it. I’ll play in snow and rain but when it gets to 40- and 50-mph winds, if you can grab the ball a little bit better, it cuts the air better. If it’s rainy you can grip it a little better but between 12.5 and 13.5, I wouldn’t know.”
So what I'm hearing is that Carson Palmer likes a softer ball and has no idea whether the ball he throws has too much or too little air in it, but he definitely prefers a softer ball if possible. I think Roger Goodell should begin an investigation immediately into whether Carson Palmer has knowledge of football deflating. Turn over your phone, Carson!
On Brady: “It’s been so media-overload, when stuff like that starts happening, I just can’t even turn on ESPN. Rules are the rules. If the balls were below, the balls were below. There’s a reason.
Right, but Carson Palmer, who throws footballs for a living, just claimed he has no idea if a ball is over or under-inflated according to the NFL rules. He states he has no idea what the PSI of the ball is, so rules are rules, but if the balls were below, then the balls were below. He's missing the basic question of whether the balls were below. Tom Brady is expected to know the exact PSI of a ball even though Carson Palmer admits he wouldn't know the exact PSI of a ball unless he was told.
9. I think if you have a spare $18.88, a good investment that might yield a pretty great weekend is available at Weekend With The 88s. Carolina tight end Greg Olsen wears 88, and NASCAR driver Dale Earnhardt Jr. drives the number 88 car and is based in nearby Concord, N.C. If you win, you get a tour of Earnhardt’s garage and Bank of America Stadium on Saturday, Oct. 31; a helicopter ride to Earnhardt’s race on Sunday, and sideline passes and game tickets to the Panthers-Colts game in Charlotte on Monday night, Nov. 2. The fund-raiser benefits Levine Children’s Hospital in Charlotte, with is near to Olsen’s heart.
I see what you did there, Peter. Very tasteful. Did all of the kind words about Dr. Z and how much he is missed by his colleagues make his wife speechless? A fund raiser at Levine is close to Olsen's heart. This isn't egregious or anything, but considering what Olsen's son went through it's just another example of Peter writing something that isn't in the best of taste. Who cares though? How many people has Greg Olsen killed?
In 2012, Olsen’s son T.J. was born with a non-functioning left side of his heart, which required surgery, and he spent 40 days getting treatment there.
See, it's close to Olsen's heart because his son's heart didn't work! Get it? His son spent 40 days in the hospital getting his heart repaired and fundraisers at Levine Children's Hospital are close to Olsen's heart. Oh no! Another unintentional mini-gaffe from Peter. He doesn't intend to write these things, but they just happen.
10. I think these are my non-football thoughts of the week:
c. Jayson Stark with the MLB Factoid of the Year: Bryce Harper scored four runs Thursday for the Nationals without swinging at a pitch.
d. You can look it up. Four at-bats against Atlanta. Sixteen balls, four called strikes, four walks. Four runs and one RBI, and he never swung in 20 pitches.
This was against the Braves. The fact Bryce Harper had to actually step in the batter's box means this was unimpressive. I could score four runs against the Braves' pitching without even leaving the dugout.
e. Great read by ESPN.com’s Israel Gutierrez on a current event in his life.
Peter thinks Gutierrez is having a "gay wedding."
h. A bad day, by the way, for the Christian Hackenberg-as-top-overall-2016-pick crowd.
Christian Hackenberg will be the top pick in 2016 in the same way that Jake Locker was going to be the top pick in 2010 or 2011. Just ignore his progression as a quarterback in college and convince yourself to see those things that you want to see.
i. Regarding Matt Harvey and the Mets and James Andrews and the innings limit they’re fussing about: Why doesn’t Harvey have an MRI done right now, to see if his Tommy John-repaired elbow is in perfect condition? If it isn’t, then the innings limit seems wise. If the elbow looks fine, why not have a reasonable discussion about whether he should pitch as he’s normally pitching now?
j. I’m interested in hearing from an orthopedist, particularly one who has worked on pitching elbows, to see if that idea is reasonable, or malarkey.
I'm not an orthopedist, but I don't know if a doctor can look at an MRI and start to see a potential tear or problem in Harvey's elbow that he hasn't started to feel as of yet. I don't think elbows are like tread on tires where you can see how much it has been used and how much more it has left in it. I could be wrong about what an MRI shows regarding wear on an elbow, but this MRI idea sounds like a bad precedent as well. A precedent I probably wouldn't want to set if I were Matt Harvey.
l. Beernerdness: So how was the MMQB Saison? Really, really good. Harpoon brewer Steve Theoharides took great care to brew a classic Saison—yellow, cloudy, flavorful, with a hint of banana and clove (don’t laugh; those are great hints of tastes in a beer).
Basically it takes like a fruity beer. Peter loves himself some beer that just doesn't taste like beer, but tastes like a cocktail mixed with beer. I don't mind a few occasionally, but Peter doesn't seem to drink anything but beer that has hints of fruit in it.
The Adieu Haiku
My picks stink. So don’t
get ticked if it’s Bills-Niners.
Berman Super Bowl.
I'm not sure I understand this reference to Chris Berman or want to understand the reference. I do understand the Adieu Haiku stinks worse than Peter's Super Bowl pick.
Wednesday, August 12, 2015
3 comments MMQB Review: Peter King Thinks a 64.3% Completion Percentage is Less Than a 63.1% Completion Percentage
Peter King shared Robert Klemko's obsession with Ronda Rousey in last week's MMQB. Peter also detailed how Jay Gruden apparently isn't going to help Robert Griffin succeed this year, Matt Ryan doesn't understand all these games that are on phones, and the Broncos aren't going to make Peyton Manning throw 613 passes per game this year. This week Peter talks about how we forget the Colts were embarrassed again by the Patriots in the playoffs, talks about how FUCKING PRECOCIOUS Marcus Mariota is, something about J.J. Watt that I don't care about since he's quickly entering the "Favre Zone" for me where he goes so far out of the way for attention but nobody cares because he's a great football player (seriously, Watt takes a bunch of selfies and pictures of himself on his Instagram page and then has the gall to mock Mettenberger for taking selfies?), and, of course talks about the ongoing battle between the NFL and Tom Brady over deflated footballs.
Also, Peter played Madden 16. He beat Gerald McCoy at it. So precocious of Peter.
Is it just me, or is there a ridiculous amount of stuff happening in the NFL right now?
This has been the craziest time around training camp in the history of the NFL...at least until next year.
The Colts have been steamrolled by New England three times in their past 20 games—by scores of 45-7, 42-20 and 43-22—and they curiously haven’t buttressed their run defense, having fallen out of the bidding for Haloti Ngata and Vince Wilfork in the off-season. Tom Brady could have played with Nerf balls and the Colts wouldn’t have anything to complain about.
This is part of my reasoning why I'm not totally freaking out about the Patriots (allegedly!) using deflated footballs against the Colts. It did not have an effect on the game at all. Not that cheating needs to have an effect on the game to be cheating, but it certainly would help my outrage if I was sure the footballs being deflated by a few tenths of a PSI really gave the Patriots an advantage that was more than mental.
“We got our asses kicked,” Pagano said. “Period. End of story. None of us here will ever forget that day, that final score. We got a damn artery gushing and no sutures to stop the bleeding. You never forget that.”
But don't worry, the Colts went out and signed Andre Johnson, Frank Gore and drafted Phillip Dorsett. That will totally help prevent the Patriots from scoring 40+ points on the Colts defense again. I'm being snarky of course, the Colts spent six of their eight picks on defense, so consider this defensive problem against the Patriots fixed. Dammit, there's my snark again.
The Colts could have the greatest pass-catching corps in football this year, accompanying the best young quarterback in the game (and Andrew Luck has gone to school on Andrew Luck’s penchant for the big mistake).
Andrew Luck is self-reporting himself for having a penchant for the big mistake. He's accountable to himself, which is probably nice, since I'm sure Peter King certainly wouldn't hold Luck accountable for any big mistakes. Also, the Colts are pretty much re-booting the Manning era in Indianapolis. Not that there isn't anything wrong with this, but at a certain point the Colts have to realize a great quarterback will make his receivers better. A great quarterback can't stop the opposing team from scoring 40 points. I think you get my concern for the Colts. I'll only repeat it 10 more times before the 2015 NFL season is over.
Eight straight practices, eight straight days without an interception for Marcus Mariota, Tennessee wunderkind. You’ll never guess who wants him to throw one.
This isn't difficult. Ken Whisenhunt wants Mariota to throw an INT so he can see how Mariota recovers. I don't have to read MMQB to know this answer.
I played Gerald McCoy of the Bucs in EA Sports’ “Madden 16” game. I am the only male in America who had never played Madden before, and, justifiably, neither McCoy nor teammate Mike Evans, a spectator for the King-McCoy tussle, was impressed with my game. “This is like playing my daughter,’’ said observer Evans. Then, of course, the greatest upset in sports history happened.
You do NOT call Peter King a woman. Women are for cooking and being spied and listened in on while they are walking in Central Park. Peter's fury at being compared to a female obviously drove him to victory.
The Colts scored 458 points last year, which is a lot. And they went out and signed a workhorse back (Frank Gore) and vet receiver Andre Johnson, who has 306 catches over the past three years, and then drafted another receiver, Phillip Dorsett, in the first round. (The Colts will field three wideouts this year who have recorded 40 times under 4.4 seconds.)
Yep, the Colts will have a great offense. That wasn't ever really a question, was it?
In addition, Luck’s big project this offseason was to figure why his interception total rose from nine in 2013 to 16 last year.
Because he threw 7 more interceptions than he did the season before? This is the part where Peter and Chuck Pagano pretend like Andrew Luck isn't going to be a Top-5 quarterback by the end of next season, and possibly a Top-3 quarterback even. It's the part where Luck's 16 interceptions are made a bigger deal than they are, as if he isn't going to learn and be fine.
Okay. Luck’s going to be fine. The offense should average 30 a game. But who’ll stop the reign?
Yes, Luck will be fine. The genius that Ryan Grigson is hasn't done a ton to help Luck out on the defensive side of the ball. At least not in my opinion, but nobody cares what I think.
New England has rushed for 657 yards against the Colts in their past three meetings, which cries out for a fix. Indy hopes 2014 free-agent 3-4 end Arthur Jones (who was hurt half of last season) and 2015 free-agent end Kendall Langford, 650 pounds of run-stopping on the edge, will be the answer.
They may be the answer or the Colts may not even face the Patriots in the playoffs again. Who knows?
GM Ryan Grigson didn’t want to pay $6 million a year to the 33-year-old Wilfork,
I can get that. The Colts are paying 29 year old Kendall Langford $4.5 million this year and Wilfork signed with the Texans on a 2 year $9 million contract, so the idea they would have had to pay Wilfork $6 million per year doesn't seem entirely accurate though. I would pay $9 million for two seasons of Vince Wilfork.
or deal two mid-round picks for Ngata, who might be a one-year Band-aid.
(Insert Trent Richardson joke about Grigson giving up a first round pick for Richardson but not wanting to give up mid-round picks for an actual good NFL player here)
“We have enough here,” said Pagano, meaning enough defensive talent. We’ll see, but perhaps not until the Patriots play in Indy in October … or until they meet again in January.
OR the Colts will end up having to play a different team in the playoffs and the Colts won't meet the Patriots. Either way, the Patriots are not going to be hanging 40+ points on the Colts when they meet in October. They are going to want to hang 60+ points on the Colts.
Two things I hope Frank Gifford is not remembered for:
Having an affair with a flight attendant?
As a football player, being KO’d by Eagles middle linebacker Chuck Bednarik in 1960 on one of the most brutal hits in NFL history.
As a broadcaster, for Howard Cosell, his “Monday Night Football” partner, calling Gifford “the human mannequin.”
I'm not sure why some of these words are in italics.
It was sad to hear about Frank Gifford but "the human mannequin" thing is funny and that hit by Bednarik would have had the media calling him a monster and requesting he be suspended from playing in NFL games for the rest of his natural life. Times have changed.
This Mariota guy’s pretty precocious.
PRETTY FUCKING PRECOCIOUS!
In Nashville the other day, I watched rookie quarterback Marcus Mariota in a team drill do something veteran quarterbacks do in training camp.
He got in a fight with one of the team's starting cornerbacks?
Inside the 10-yard line, from the shotgun, he barked out, “Delta! Delta!” He took a snap and looked left, to a crossing Kendall Wright, closely covered by cornerback Perrish Cox, then quickly scanned to the right, holding cornerback Jason McCourty on his man, and keeping the safety in the middle of the field. “A veteran move,” McCourty said. Then Mariota quickly locked back onto Wright and fired a strike to the outside corner—where Wright could catch the ball but Cox couldn’t reach. Touchdown.
That's not just a veteran move, that's precocious as hell.
Here is the definition of "precocious":
"Of a child; having or showing the qualities or abilities of an adult at an unusually early age."
So here is the biggest issue with Peter calling Mariota "precocious." Mariota is not, because he is an adult. Mariota is 21 years old, so his advanced ability to not throw interceptions and play the quarterback position is impressive, but it's not precocious, because again, MARIOTA IS A FUCKING ADULT HUMAN BEING! I've never understood Peter's weird fascination with calling grown people "precocious" and enjoying adult men who have child-like qualities. It's a little creepy to me. Peter isn't the only one who does this of course, but he loves using the word "precocious" in the context of a grown adult playing football well at a young age. In fact, Peter uses the word "precocious" in as many different contexts as possible.
So Mariota is playing well and developing as a quarterback very nicely, but he's not precocious. He's an adult, not a child, no matter how much Peter creepily would prefer Mariota be more child-like.
Eight practices, no interceptions in team periods or seven-on-seven work. Seriously: Coach Ken Whisenhunt, who doesn’t want the kid fitted for his yellow jacket in Canton just yet, told me: “The hype is getting out of control. I don’t care if he throws an interception out here. Come on—it’s August. It’s camp. I may just have him throw one to get this over with. Just throw one. We gotta get it out of the way.”
Peter said we would never guess who wants Mariota to throw an interception, yet I got it right without actually reading the answer. Probably because it was an obvious answer to an even more obvious little game Peter loves to play. I would have been surprised if the answer was Zach Mettenberger.
“He’s got the ‘it’ factor,’’ said defensive coordinator Ray Horton. “He’s got a sort of je ne sais quoi about him.”
How precocious of Ray Horton to use this phrase!
Now, I’ve covered football for 31 years. I have never heard a coach, or anyone, use “je ne sais quoi” about a player—the indefinable quality, usually in a very good way, used to describe the best of the best. “His poise under pressure looks pretty special,” Horton said.
Maybe the Titans just don't have a very good defense too? Or possibly Mariota is so precocious that he has the abilities of an NFL quarterback while he is still a child at the age of 21.
“The adjustment for me hasn’t been that different,” said Mariota. “The coaches at Oregon really prepared me for this. There’s a lot of similar concepts between Oregon and here. I’m the benefit of so many other people, and that’s helped my transition.”
I'm not sure if it's a good thing or a bad thing that Mariota hasn't had to adjust too much from the offense he ran at Oregon to the offense the Titans run.
“The adjustment for me hasn’t been that different,” said Mariota. “The coaches at Oregon really prepared me for this. There’s a lot of similar concepts between Oregon and here. I’m the benefit of so many other people, and that’s helped my transition.”
Nashville. Hawaii. It's the same thing. I've been been to both the city and the state and can report that they are indeed very, very different.
Guess who’s the “Hard Knocks” star?
I'm guessing it's the guy who loves to criticize others for being too focused on taking social media photos and not being focused enough on football? Probably the same guy who was on a reality television show periodically while in college, though I'm sure he would be happy to criticize an NFL player for being on a reality television show periodically.
"Don't take selfies, unless the selfie you are taking shows just how hard you are grinding to be a better player. Then it's okay."
The first show, in fact, will have the rarest of events: a mistake by Watt, highlighted by coach Bill O’Brien in front of the team. Before a practice, Watt, miked, tells a teammate: “Ever since O-B got here, he’s been trying to get me to jump offsides. And I haven’t jumped offsides one time. Not one single time. He talks to me about it all the time.”
So they go out to practice one day, and O’Brien sing-songs to Watt, “We’re gonna get you!” And Watt, too aggressive in anticipating the snap from center, jumps offside. The offense is jubilant.
You got Watt to jump offsides once, but you will end up paying for it in blood when he destroys the offensive lineman in front of him on the next play.
Then, NFL Films cameras show Watt, post-practice, working alone as the sun goes down on his swim moves past the offensive-lineman dummy.
I'm sure Watt had no idea the camera was there, being as how he is so camera-shy and all, especially when it comes to showing off how hard he works.
I think we can see where this is headed: J.J. Watt, reality TV star, on “Hard Knocks: Training Camp with the Houston Texans.” It’s another world for Watt to conquer.
I'm not going to make a snarky comment about this, because it's fine if J.J. Watt embraces becoming a reality star. He's just trying to show everyone how hard he works. When he's taking selfies it's for a purpose more important than just showing himself off. I mean, obviously. He isn't a hypocrite, mostly because I'm guessing he doesn't know what that word means.
Watt is a really, really great player, but the guy shows up in front of a camera every chance he gets, yet he has the gall to call out Mettenberger for taking a selfie. And few in the media will even point this out because they don't want to question him since he's such a fun quote and incredibly talented player.
In Green Bay on Friday, I took some time to do a little math, trying to answer this question:
What’s the best combo platter of quarterbacks in NFL history?
Or, to give it more clarity: What two quarterbacks, back to back, are the best in NFL history?
The answer is obviously Jeff Blake and David Klingler.
I entered into this thinking it would probably be Joe Montana and Steve Young of the 49ers. And maybe it is. Statistics can be twisted a lot of ways, but how do you beat four Super Bowls for Montana and one for Young, and the two-decade greatness they shared under Bill Walsh and George Seifert? But now I am not so sure. I think it’s Brett Favre and Aaron Rodgers.
Of course you do, Peter. I love me some Aaron Rodgers, so it's hard for me to vote against him.
In all metrics except Super Bowl victories (Montana/Young 5, Favre/Rodgers 2), the back-to-back champs looks like the Packer duo.
Does it though, Peter? In terms of "metrics," Peter isn't very precocious with numbers.
Montana/Young: 19 seasons, 213 wins, .643 completion percentage, 465-209 TD-INT
Favre/Rodgers: 23 seasons, 248 wins, .631 completion percentage, 668-343 TD-INT
So in "all metrics" which obviously doesn't include wins per season, completion percentage and TD:INT ratio, Favre/Rodgers win. I'm wondering how Peter can write "all" metrics when the numbers very clearly state here that Montana/Young won more games per season, completed passes at a higher percentage and had a better TD:INT ratio than Favre/Rodgers. I understand Peter tends to make up his own definitions of words that contradict the dictionary definition of that word (precocious, factoid), but "all" generally means "everything," not "a few numbers not given context in a comparison to each other."
I’ve found it pretty amazing that if you’re a fan of the Packers, and if you’re, say, 27 right now, you’ve never had a hopeless season because your Packers have always had a top quarterback. We found a big Packers’ fan who is 27: Kevin Sutter, of Blue Mounds, Wis. “We talk about it, me and my brothers,” Sutter said. “We talk about it a lot—just how incredibly crazy it is that for our entire childhood we saw how great Brett Favre was. He was in the top two or three quarterbacks in the league for like 10-12 years,
Was Favre though? Was he in the top two or three quarterbacks in the NFL for 10-12 years? From 1994-2005 Favre was a top-two or top-three quarterback? Might want to think on that for a little bit and then take back some of this exaggeration.
We remember when we were 10 years old and we saw Favre, and now you just appreciate it so much more how good Rodgers is. I can’t even imagine watching a team you love struggle to find a franchise quarterback.”
Well, maybe one day you will get to do it. It's great, you'll love it.
Aside from Sydney Seau’s warm words, the best of the rest of the speeches Saturday night:
Ron Wolf
"At that time there was always a threat to players of other teams that if they didn't shape up, they would be traded to Green Bay. We worked hard to eliminate that stigma. Suddenly players wanted to come and be a part of football's most illustrious franchise and to play in pro football's most storied cathedral, Lambeau Field."
I mean, I guess so. This seems like another exaggeration since the Packers have such a storied history and Wolf calls Lambeau Field "football's most storied cathedral." It was probably not easy to get free agents to Green Bay, but I think the idea there was a huge stigma about playing in Green Bay is slightly overblown by Wolf.
Jerome Bettis
Welp, open the floodgates then...
I am not totally against Bettis being in the Hall of Fame, but I think the fact he was a good quote and smiled a lot helped as much as his career numbers helped him. Bettis is supposed to be one of the best running backs of all-time, but never led the NFL in rushing yards, is 5th all-time in career touches while being 32nd all-time in all-purpose yards. He scored a lot of touchdowns though, even though he never cracked the Top-5 in an NFL season in rushing touchdowns. Bettis was always really good, but I never really considered him one of the best running backs in my opinion. He just doesn't do it for me. If he stays with the Rams for his entire career and doesn't smile a lot, I think he's on the outside looking in.
What you need to know about Brady/Goodell this week.
Nothing. I need to know nothing, yet I will be told a lot of things.
McCann, the founding director of the University of New Hampshire’s Sports and Entertainment Law Institute, has been on top of this story from the start. McCann’s report:
Keep this in mind: The legal question for Judge Berman is not whether Brady “did it.” It’s whether the NFL lawfully followed Article 46 of the collective bargaining agreement and the “law of shop,” which refers to fairness and consistency in arbitration.
I don't ever see how the guy who hands out the punishment can hear the appeal of the punishment, but that's just me probably.
Among those arguable defects is the confusing role played by attorney Ted Wells, whom the NFL has repeatedly hailed as “independent” yet who testified that he shared drafts of his report in advance with NFL attorneys and who has invoked the attorney-client privilege as a way of trying to not answer questions.
The idea Ted Wells was "independent" was always laughable to the point of absurdity. He's the guy the NFL hired to look into the Patriots deflating footballs. Of course he's not an independent investigator.
Judge Berman vacating the suspension would constitute a victory for Brady, but not necessarily a lasting one. The NFL would appeal the loss to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which has on occasion reversed NFL district court losses into wins. Even without an appellate court reversal, Judge Berman vacating the suspension would remand the matter to Goodell or his designee for “further proceedings…as permitted by the CBA.” This could set the table for another round of contentious league hearings. Oh, and there’s that lurking possibility that Brady could file a defamation lawsuit in Massachusetts state court at anytime.
This is all over footballs that were deflated by a very small amount. Deflated footballs and now Tom Brady could file a defamation suit, but only after the NFL goes to the Second Circuit court to reverse the decision of a district court judge. Again, the footballs were deflated by a few tenths of a PSI. Does anyone but Roger Goodell, the Patriots organization, Patriots fans and Tom Brady really care that much?
My one question about the NFL’s stance now: In the Wells Report, Brady was found to be “at least generally aware” of the scheme to deflate footballs below the 12.5-psi minimum.
But in the NFL’s 15-page brief submitted to the judge in advance of Wednesday’s conference, the NFL writes: “The commissioner suspended Brady for having ‘approved of, consented to, and provided inducements in support of’ a scheme to tamper with the game balls. And for having ‘willfully obstructed the subsequent investigation.’
But how did we get from being at least generally aware of a scheme to deflate game balls to having “approved of, consented to,” and providing inducements to aid a scheme to deflate footballs?
Peter is going to get himself suspended if he keeps daring to ask questions like this. I would give my opinion on this, but that would be parsing this whole story out more than I really care to. The NFL seems like they are making things up as they go along to make their case seem better than it truly is.
Sunday night’s Hall of Fame Game marked the first one with the new point-after-touchdown rule. After a touchdown, a team will have the option to place the ball at the 15-yard line for the one-point conversion kick (the equivalent of a 33-yard field goal); or to place the ball at the 2-yard line if the team chooses to go for a two-point conversion.
When I was in Latrobe, I ran into long-time special-teams coach Danny Smith, and he asked me a question I hadn’t considered: If you choose to kick the extra point, and the defense jumps offside and gets flagged for an offside penalty, can you change your mind and choose to go for two? With the half-the-distance penalty, that would put the ball at the one, and you might have a lot of teams choosing to go for two if you could snap from the one.
Peter was all about asking how many times a field goal kicker missed the extra point as a reason for moving the extra point back, yet how many times has the defense jumped offside on an extra point?
It happened nine times in 2014. It's the penalty that happened on "0" down when looking at the chart.
Defenders only jumped offside on an extra point nine times during 2014. Yet, Peter acts like this is a game-changing question that makes the new field goal rule even that much more interesting.
So I checked with the league, and indeed, the answer is yes. After an offside call with the ball at the 15-yard line, a coach could take the penalty and put the ball at the 10-yard line for the PAT, or take the half-the-distance penalty and choose to go for two at the one-yard line.
How many times have you seen Tom Brady take a slight leap from the one-yard line and push the ball over the goal line with extended arms? Or Drew Brees? That, to me, is a huge part of this new rule, and could lead to a lot of changed minds after five-yard penalties on PATs.
What if defenders jump offside 10 times during the 2015 season? Man, what an intriguing scenario for a situation that happens a lot!
Peter, who has been a huge proponent of the new extra point rule, wants to make it seem exciting like this new rule now adds a whole new dimension to an NFL game. Well, there were 8 missed extra points in the NFL last year and 9 times the defense jumped offside. So if Peter thinks a rule should be changed because a missed extra point occurred 8 times, how can he try to make it seem like a defensive offside that happened 9 times is a huge part of the new rule? Of course, Peter didn't do any research before writing MMQB, but I like how 8 missed extra points isn't a significant number, but he gets all excited about how a scenario that only happened 9 times last year will make the new extra point rule that much more thrilling.
One of the interesting things about having a staff of young people is the generation of ideas I’d never have thought of. Robert Klemko had one as we headed south in the first couple of days of the training camp trip.
You should play Madden against a player.
Yes, playing a video game is a brilliant new idea Peter had not quite gotten around to thinking of yet.
Funny thing: Players really care about their rating. Evans was fuming when he saw 20 receivers were rated higher than he was. “The ratings are crazy,” Evans said. “All the years, all the money I’ve been wasting on Madden, the hard work I put in on the field, getting hit in the head, knees hurting, and I still can’t get a 90 rating overall. Twenty other receivers are rated higher than me. It’s crazy, man. It hurts, man. I am a little bitter.”
Yeah, well, Mike there are 20 receivers better than you in the NFL right now. So there's that.
Still 7-7. But I had fourth-and-28 from my 12-yard line. I was going for it. What’s there to lose? Nothing. What’s there to gain? Fun!
I chose a deep pass. I have no idea what McCoy chose to do. All I know is Klemko told me to wait till the last second to throw. ”Hit the green button, wait a little, and then hit the blue button,” Klemko said.
Manziel was getting rushed. I waited … and just as Manziel as about to get leveled, I hit the blue button. Way down the left side, backup wideout Taylor Gabriel was free, his corner having tripped on the play. And the ball nestled into Gabriel’s hands. “Yes! YES! YES!” I screamed. Easy touchdown. Easy 88-yard touchdown. On fourth-and-29.
King wins! King wins!
This is some of the bullshit which explains why I don't enjoy playing video games against other people. I realized a few years ago that it's no fun to lose to someone who has no clue what he's doing on these games. I don't handle it that well.
“Way to go on that Brady thing.”
—New Hall of Fame member Ron Wolf, passing commissioner Roger Goodell at the Pro Football Hall of Fame’s yellow-jacket ceremony Thursday night in Canton.
Wolf did not appear sarcastic.
I can only wonder how many PSI below the appropriate weight some footballs can be at Lambeau Field when it is cold as hell out on the field If the cold in New England can decrease the PSI in a football, how much will the PSI decrease in the freezing cold winters of Wisconsin?
In the off-season, the Chicago Bears’ new coach, John Fox, hired former 49ers defensive coordinator Vic Fangio as his defensive coordinator. Fangio, in his four seasons running the San Francisco defense, had some good games against the Packers—and, well, I’ll be—the Bears host the Packers on the first Sunday of the NFL season.
Yes, I'm sure John Fox hired Fangio simply so he could win two games against the Packers every season.
• Aaron Rodgers versus San Francisco with Fangio as defensive coordinator: 0-4.
• Aaron Rodgers versus every other defensive coordinator: 76-34.
It’s not quite so glaring when you look at the numbers, and it’s probably more an indictment of the Packers defense. Green Bay put up 25.3 points per game on offense against Fangio in those four games, and Rodgers’ passer rating was a slightly below-his-norm 96.0.
Typical Peter King. He uses a statistic and then admits he's providing a misleading statistics, but alas, wants his original point to still stand.
"Here's a statistic about how Aaron Rodgers can't beat a Vic Fangio-led defense and here is a conclusion I've drawn about that. If you really pay attention then you see it isn't really Rodgers' fault that the Packers have lost to a Vic Fangio-led defense four times and the Packers offense probably has nothing to do with Rodgers' 0-4 record against the 49ers, but let's not do that. Let's pretend this statistic from me means something."
The four Titans’ preseason games will be televised live in Hawaii, birthplace and place of residence and schooling for the first 17 years of the life of Marcus Ardel Taulauniu Mariota.
I mean, Hawaii is pretty much Nashville.
Ten Things I Think I Think
3. I think Seattle safety Kam Chancellor is a heck of a player, obviously. Who doesn’t think so? Likeable guy too. But holding out for a new deal after two years of a five-year contract is simply a non-starter.
This from the guy who thought the Vikings should have paid Adrian Peterson more money in order to negotiate a truce with him and have him show up to training camp. Peter suggested this while Peterson had three more years on his contract with the Vikings. So Peter thinks Chancellor shouldn't be holding out for more money with three years left on his contract, but he's all about Adrian Peterson getting more money with three years left on his contract. Consistency, thy name isn't entirely "Peter King."
In the first two years of the deal, he made $12.55 million, including bonuses. In the last three years, he is slated to make $16.875 million, including bonuses but not including incentives. You might say that $5.6 million a year for a top-five NFL safety is too little, and I might agree … except that the contract, in 2013 dollars, was very much a market-value deal. Chancellor signed it. Seattle has had a practice of working on players’ contract with a year left, or when they reach free agency. Even if it means sacrificing Chancellor for the season (I don’t think that will happen, but it could), Schneider will do more damage with his roster by giving in than by holding firm.
But giving more money to a guy who missed the entire previous season due to suspension and is among the highest-paid players at his position in an effort to get back in this player's good graces and entice him to report to training camp? It's a brilliant idea.
4. I think this is one good reason why it’s harder to play quarterback in New York than in most markets: Geno Smith was booed at the Jets’ open (free) scrimmage at MetLife Stadium on Saturday night. I mean, booed on Aug. 8, in a practice. I’m all for fan freedom to do whatever the heck they want, but that is just stupid. Boo the guy when he stinks in a game. But in his first fortnight of training camp with a new offense? What is wrong with people?
Maybe they thought it was Josh Freeman, Peter. I'm sure booing Freeman is something you can get behind.
7. I think the best thing I heard about Jameis Winston in Tampa is this, from a smart guy in the Bucs’ offices: “Have you seen him in the papers one time since the draft? No.” In other words, he gets that the best thing for a rookie quarterback is to work on his craft and not be this year’s Johnny Manziel.
Wait, the Buccaneers are talking up their rookie quarterback who got compared to Manziel because of his off-the-field issues that he had during college, and in talking him up they are showing he is totally different from Manziel? I don't believe it.
I don't think working on his craft was ever the issue with Winston at Florida State. The issues that others had with him was what he did in the spare time he had when he wasn't working on his craft. So it is good news, but also I wouldn't expect the Buccaneers to say anything different.
10. I think these are my non-football thoughts of the week:
a. Smart column by the Philadelphia Inquirer’s Mike Sielski defending Chip Kelly, and with good reason.
I'm not sure why Peter writes "with good reason," other than he thinks the idea Chip Kelly is racist is ridiculous. It might very well be, but these are the times when I wish Peter had not quit running his "Chip Kelly Wisdom of the Week" section of MMQB where he hung on every word Kelly said as if it were coming from a deity. It would be a really funny section to read right now.
c. Bernie Miklasz’s last column for the St. Louis Post Dispatch on Sunday was in keeping with what Miklasz always does.
Shitty work? Mediocre writing but from a great guy? DON'T HOLD BACK WHAT YOU THINK, PETER! I CAN'T HANDLE THE DRAMA OF YOU WRITING A SENTENCE ONLY TO HOLD BACK ON WHAT YOU THINK!
Which is great work.
Hey, it's the Cardinals Beat Writer's Way. Expect nothing less.
g. Donald Trump. Filterless.
There is a difference in being filterless and saying stupid shit all the time. Not having a filter involves saying things that you believe which may have some form of the truth behind them. I'm not sure Trump means what he says or is being truthful.
h. Eleven days on the road and counting. I have not turned the TV on in my room one time. It isn’t that I don’t like TV. I do. But there’s something about getting away from it for a while, immersing oneself in a new season and jumping into football full-go.
i. For those who wonder, I was traveling from Chicago to Anderson, Ind., during the Hall of Fame speeches. Watched them on YouTube when I got here.
These days, watching videos on a computer is pretty much the same thing as watching videos on a television. Same difference.
j. Coffeenerdness: You know, in desperate times, six shots of espresso in a grande macchiato is not so bad.
Jesus, it's not all the coffee that Peter drinks, but how much he spends on this coffee that blows my mind. Six shots of espresso? I get pissy when my wife buys some drink that costs $3.50 at Starbucks.
o. Bob Cousy, 87. That snuck up on us.
Yes, it did sneak up on "us." I have really been trying to pay attention to when Bob Cousy turned 87, then BAM, the next thing I know it happened.
The Adieu Haiku
On the road again
We've got the Lions today Bonjour, Haloti
Amazing. Every week Peter makes the Adieu Haiku more pointless, aimless and idiotic than the last week's haiku. I don't know how he does it. In a year or two, the Adieu Haiku will consist just of random words thrown together to form the correct number of syllables on each line.
Also, Peter played Madden 16. He beat Gerald McCoy at it. So precocious of Peter.
Is it just me, or is there a ridiculous amount of stuff happening in the NFL right now?
This has been the craziest time around training camp in the history of the NFL...at least until next year.
The Colts have been steamrolled by New England three times in their past 20 games—by scores of 45-7, 42-20 and 43-22—and they curiously haven’t buttressed their run defense, having fallen out of the bidding for Haloti Ngata and Vince Wilfork in the off-season. Tom Brady could have played with Nerf balls and the Colts wouldn’t have anything to complain about.
This is part of my reasoning why I'm not totally freaking out about the Patriots (allegedly!) using deflated footballs against the Colts. It did not have an effect on the game at all. Not that cheating needs to have an effect on the game to be cheating, but it certainly would help my outrage if I was sure the footballs being deflated by a few tenths of a PSI really gave the Patriots an advantage that was more than mental.
“We got our asses kicked,” Pagano said. “Period. End of story. None of us here will ever forget that day, that final score. We got a damn artery gushing and no sutures to stop the bleeding. You never forget that.”
But don't worry, the Colts went out and signed Andre Johnson, Frank Gore and drafted Phillip Dorsett. That will totally help prevent the Patriots from scoring 40+ points on the Colts defense again. I'm being snarky of course, the Colts spent six of their eight picks on defense, so consider this defensive problem against the Patriots fixed. Dammit, there's my snark again.
The Colts could have the greatest pass-catching corps in football this year, accompanying the best young quarterback in the game (and Andrew Luck has gone to school on Andrew Luck’s penchant for the big mistake).
Andrew Luck is self-reporting himself for having a penchant for the big mistake. He's accountable to himself, which is probably nice, since I'm sure Peter King certainly wouldn't hold Luck accountable for any big mistakes. Also, the Colts are pretty much re-booting the Manning era in Indianapolis. Not that there isn't anything wrong with this, but at a certain point the Colts have to realize a great quarterback will make his receivers better. A great quarterback can't stop the opposing team from scoring 40 points. I think you get my concern for the Colts. I'll only repeat it 10 more times before the 2015 NFL season is over.
Eight straight practices, eight straight days without an interception for Marcus Mariota, Tennessee wunderkind. You’ll never guess who wants him to throw one.
This isn't difficult. Ken Whisenhunt wants Mariota to throw an INT so he can see how Mariota recovers. I don't have to read MMQB to know this answer.
I played Gerald McCoy of the Bucs in EA Sports’ “Madden 16” game. I am the only male in America who had never played Madden before, and, justifiably, neither McCoy nor teammate Mike Evans, a spectator for the King-McCoy tussle, was impressed with my game. “This is like playing my daughter,’’ said observer Evans. Then, of course, the greatest upset in sports history happened.
You do NOT call Peter King a woman. Women are for cooking and being spied and listened in on while they are walking in Central Park. Peter's fury at being compared to a female obviously drove him to victory.
The Colts scored 458 points last year, which is a lot. And they went out and signed a workhorse back (Frank Gore) and vet receiver Andre Johnson, who has 306 catches over the past three years, and then drafted another receiver, Phillip Dorsett, in the first round. (The Colts will field three wideouts this year who have recorded 40 times under 4.4 seconds.)
Yep, the Colts will have a great offense. That wasn't ever really a question, was it?
In addition, Luck’s big project this offseason was to figure why his interception total rose from nine in 2013 to 16 last year.
Because he threw 7 more interceptions than he did the season before? This is the part where Peter and Chuck Pagano pretend like Andrew Luck isn't going to be a Top-5 quarterback by the end of next season, and possibly a Top-3 quarterback even. It's the part where Luck's 16 interceptions are made a bigger deal than they are, as if he isn't going to learn and be fine.
Okay. Luck’s going to be fine. The offense should average 30 a game. But who’ll stop the reign?
Yes, Luck will be fine. The genius that Ryan Grigson is hasn't done a ton to help Luck out on the defensive side of the ball. At least not in my opinion, but nobody cares what I think.
New England has rushed for 657 yards against the Colts in their past three meetings, which cries out for a fix. Indy hopes 2014 free-agent 3-4 end Arthur Jones (who was hurt half of last season) and 2015 free-agent end Kendall Langford, 650 pounds of run-stopping on the edge, will be the answer.
They may be the answer or the Colts may not even face the Patriots in the playoffs again. Who knows?
GM Ryan Grigson didn’t want to pay $6 million a year to the 33-year-old Wilfork,
I can get that. The Colts are paying 29 year old Kendall Langford $4.5 million this year and Wilfork signed with the Texans on a 2 year $9 million contract, so the idea they would have had to pay Wilfork $6 million per year doesn't seem entirely accurate though. I would pay $9 million for two seasons of Vince Wilfork.
or deal two mid-round picks for Ngata, who might be a one-year Band-aid.
(Insert Trent Richardson joke about Grigson giving up a first round pick for Richardson but not wanting to give up mid-round picks for an actual good NFL player here)
“We have enough here,” said Pagano, meaning enough defensive talent. We’ll see, but perhaps not until the Patriots play in Indy in October … or until they meet again in January.
OR the Colts will end up having to play a different team in the playoffs and the Colts won't meet the Patriots. Either way, the Patriots are not going to be hanging 40+ points on the Colts when they meet in October. They are going to want to hang 60+ points on the Colts.
Two things I hope Frank Gifford is not remembered for:
Having an affair with a flight attendant?
As a football player, being KO’d by Eagles middle linebacker Chuck Bednarik in 1960 on one of the most brutal hits in NFL history.
As a broadcaster, for Howard Cosell, his “Monday Night Football” partner, calling Gifford “the human mannequin.”
I'm not sure why some of these words are in italics.
It was sad to hear about Frank Gifford but "the human mannequin" thing is funny and that hit by Bednarik would have had the media calling him a monster and requesting he be suspended from playing in NFL games for the rest of his natural life. Times have changed.
This Mariota guy’s pretty precocious.
PRETTY FUCKING PRECOCIOUS!
In Nashville the other day, I watched rookie quarterback Marcus Mariota in a team drill do something veteran quarterbacks do in training camp.
He got in a fight with one of the team's starting cornerbacks?
Inside the 10-yard line, from the shotgun, he barked out, “Delta! Delta!” He took a snap and looked left, to a crossing Kendall Wright, closely covered by cornerback Perrish Cox, then quickly scanned to the right, holding cornerback Jason McCourty on his man, and keeping the safety in the middle of the field. “A veteran move,” McCourty said. Then Mariota quickly locked back onto Wright and fired a strike to the outside corner—where Wright could catch the ball but Cox couldn’t reach. Touchdown.
That's not just a veteran move, that's precocious as hell.
Here is the definition of "precocious":
"Of a child; having or showing the qualities or abilities of an adult at an unusually early age."
So here is the biggest issue with Peter calling Mariota "precocious." Mariota is not, because he is an adult. Mariota is 21 years old, so his advanced ability to not throw interceptions and play the quarterback position is impressive, but it's not precocious, because again, MARIOTA IS A FUCKING ADULT HUMAN BEING! I've never understood Peter's weird fascination with calling grown people "precocious" and enjoying adult men who have child-like qualities. It's a little creepy to me. Peter isn't the only one who does this of course, but he loves using the word "precocious" in the context of a grown adult playing football well at a young age. In fact, Peter uses the word "precocious" in as many different contexts as possible.
So Mariota is playing well and developing as a quarterback very nicely, but he's not precocious. He's an adult, not a child, no matter how much Peter creepily would prefer Mariota be more child-like.
Eight practices, no interceptions in team periods or seven-on-seven work. Seriously: Coach Ken Whisenhunt, who doesn’t want the kid fitted for his yellow jacket in Canton just yet, told me: “The hype is getting out of control. I don’t care if he throws an interception out here. Come on—it’s August. It’s camp. I may just have him throw one to get this over with. Just throw one. We gotta get it out of the way.”
Peter said we would never guess who wants Mariota to throw an interception, yet I got it right without actually reading the answer. Probably because it was an obvious answer to an even more obvious little game Peter loves to play. I would have been surprised if the answer was Zach Mettenberger.
“He’s got the ‘it’ factor,’’ said defensive coordinator Ray Horton. “He’s got a sort of je ne sais quoi about him.”
How precocious of Ray Horton to use this phrase!
Now, I’ve covered football for 31 years. I have never heard a coach, or anyone, use “je ne sais quoi” about a player—the indefinable quality, usually in a very good way, used to describe the best of the best. “His poise under pressure looks pretty special,” Horton said.
Maybe the Titans just don't have a very good defense too? Or possibly Mariota is so precocious that he has the abilities of an NFL quarterback while he is still a child at the age of 21.
“The adjustment for me hasn’t been that different,” said Mariota. “The coaches at Oregon really prepared me for this. There’s a lot of similar concepts between Oregon and here. I’m the benefit of so many other people, and that’s helped my transition.”
I'm not sure if it's a good thing or a bad thing that Mariota hasn't had to adjust too much from the offense he ran at Oregon to the offense the Titans run.
“The adjustment for me hasn’t been that different,” said Mariota. “The coaches at Oregon really prepared me for this. There’s a lot of similar concepts between Oregon and here. I’m the benefit of so many other people, and that’s helped my transition.”
Nashville. Hawaii. It's the same thing. I've been been to both the city and the state and can report that they are indeed very, very different.
Guess who’s the “Hard Knocks” star?
I'm guessing it's the guy who loves to criticize others for being too focused on taking social media photos and not being focused enough on football? Probably the same guy who was on a reality television show periodically while in college, though I'm sure he would be happy to criticize an NFL player for being on a reality television show periodically.
"Don't take selfies, unless the selfie you are taking shows just how hard you are grinding to be a better player. Then it's okay."
The first show, in fact, will have the rarest of events: a mistake by Watt, highlighted by coach Bill O’Brien in front of the team. Before a practice, Watt, miked, tells a teammate: “Ever since O-B got here, he’s been trying to get me to jump offsides. And I haven’t jumped offsides one time. Not one single time. He talks to me about it all the time.”
So they go out to practice one day, and O’Brien sing-songs to Watt, “We’re gonna get you!” And Watt, too aggressive in anticipating the snap from center, jumps offside. The offense is jubilant.
You got Watt to jump offsides once, but you will end up paying for it in blood when he destroys the offensive lineman in front of him on the next play.
Then, NFL Films cameras show Watt, post-practice, working alone as the sun goes down on his swim moves past the offensive-lineman dummy.
I'm sure Watt had no idea the camera was there, being as how he is so camera-shy and all, especially when it comes to showing off how hard he works.
I think we can see where this is headed: J.J. Watt, reality TV star, on “Hard Knocks: Training Camp with the Houston Texans.” It’s another world for Watt to conquer.
I'm not going to make a snarky comment about this, because it's fine if J.J. Watt embraces becoming a reality star. He's just trying to show everyone how hard he works. When he's taking selfies it's for a purpose more important than just showing himself off. I mean, obviously. He isn't a hypocrite, mostly because I'm guessing he doesn't know what that word means.
Watt is a really, really great player, but the guy shows up in front of a camera every chance he gets, yet he has the gall to call out Mettenberger for taking a selfie. And few in the media will even point this out because they don't want to question him since he's such a fun quote and incredibly talented player.
In Green Bay on Friday, I took some time to do a little math, trying to answer this question:
What’s the best combo platter of quarterbacks in NFL history?
Or, to give it more clarity: What two quarterbacks, back to back, are the best in NFL history?
The answer is obviously Jeff Blake and David Klingler.
I entered into this thinking it would probably be Joe Montana and Steve Young of the 49ers. And maybe it is. Statistics can be twisted a lot of ways, but how do you beat four Super Bowls for Montana and one for Young, and the two-decade greatness they shared under Bill Walsh and George Seifert? But now I am not so sure. I think it’s Brett Favre and Aaron Rodgers.
Of course you do, Peter. I love me some Aaron Rodgers, so it's hard for me to vote against him.
In all metrics except Super Bowl victories (Montana/Young 5, Favre/Rodgers 2), the back-to-back champs looks like the Packer duo.
Does it though, Peter? In terms of "metrics," Peter isn't very precocious with numbers.
Montana/Young: 19 seasons, 213 wins, .643 completion percentage, 465-209 TD-INT
Favre/Rodgers: 23 seasons, 248 wins, .631 completion percentage, 668-343 TD-INT
So in "all metrics" which obviously doesn't include wins per season, completion percentage and TD:INT ratio, Favre/Rodgers win. I'm wondering how Peter can write "all" metrics when the numbers very clearly state here that Montana/Young won more games per season, completed passes at a higher percentage and had a better TD:INT ratio than Favre/Rodgers. I understand Peter tends to make up his own definitions of words that contradict the dictionary definition of that word (precocious, factoid), but "all" generally means "everything," not "a few numbers not given context in a comparison to each other."
I’ve found it pretty amazing that if you’re a fan of the Packers, and if you’re, say, 27 right now, you’ve never had a hopeless season because your Packers have always had a top quarterback. We found a big Packers’ fan who is 27: Kevin Sutter, of Blue Mounds, Wis. “We talk about it, me and my brothers,” Sutter said. “We talk about it a lot—just how incredibly crazy it is that for our entire childhood we saw how great Brett Favre was. He was in the top two or three quarterbacks in the league for like 10-12 years,
Was Favre though? Was he in the top two or three quarterbacks in the NFL for 10-12 years? From 1994-2005 Favre was a top-two or top-three quarterback? Might want to think on that for a little bit and then take back some of this exaggeration.
We remember when we were 10 years old and we saw Favre, and now you just appreciate it so much more how good Rodgers is. I can’t even imagine watching a team you love struggle to find a franchise quarterback.”
Well, maybe one day you will get to do it. It's great, you'll love it.
Aside from Sydney Seau’s warm words, the best of the rest of the speeches Saturday night:
Ron Wolf
"At that time there was always a threat to players of other teams that if they didn't shape up, they would be traded to Green Bay. We worked hard to eliminate that stigma. Suddenly players wanted to come and be a part of football's most illustrious franchise and to play in pro football's most storied cathedral, Lambeau Field."
I mean, I guess so. This seems like another exaggeration since the Packers have such a storied history and Wolf calls Lambeau Field "football's most storied cathedral." It was probably not easy to get free agents to Green Bay, but I think the idea there was a huge stigma about playing in Green Bay is slightly overblown by Wolf.
Jerome Bettis
Welp, open the floodgates then...
I am not totally against Bettis being in the Hall of Fame, but I think the fact he was a good quote and smiled a lot helped as much as his career numbers helped him. Bettis is supposed to be one of the best running backs of all-time, but never led the NFL in rushing yards, is 5th all-time in career touches while being 32nd all-time in all-purpose yards. He scored a lot of touchdowns though, even though he never cracked the Top-5 in an NFL season in rushing touchdowns. Bettis was always really good, but I never really considered him one of the best running backs in my opinion. He just doesn't do it for me. If he stays with the Rams for his entire career and doesn't smile a lot, I think he's on the outside looking in.
What you need to know about Brady/Goodell this week.
Nothing. I need to know nothing, yet I will be told a lot of things.
McCann, the founding director of the University of New Hampshire’s Sports and Entertainment Law Institute, has been on top of this story from the start. McCann’s report:
Keep this in mind: The legal question for Judge Berman is not whether Brady “did it.” It’s whether the NFL lawfully followed Article 46 of the collective bargaining agreement and the “law of shop,” which refers to fairness and consistency in arbitration.
I don't ever see how the guy who hands out the punishment can hear the appeal of the punishment, but that's just me probably.
Among those arguable defects is the confusing role played by attorney Ted Wells, whom the NFL has repeatedly hailed as “independent” yet who testified that he shared drafts of his report in advance with NFL attorneys and who has invoked the attorney-client privilege as a way of trying to not answer questions.
The idea Ted Wells was "independent" was always laughable to the point of absurdity. He's the guy the NFL hired to look into the Patriots deflating footballs. Of course he's not an independent investigator.
Judge Berman vacating the suspension would constitute a victory for Brady, but not necessarily a lasting one. The NFL would appeal the loss to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which has on occasion reversed NFL district court losses into wins. Even without an appellate court reversal, Judge Berman vacating the suspension would remand the matter to Goodell or his designee for “further proceedings…as permitted by the CBA.” This could set the table for another round of contentious league hearings. Oh, and there’s that lurking possibility that Brady could file a defamation lawsuit in Massachusetts state court at anytime.
This is all over footballs that were deflated by a very small amount. Deflated footballs and now Tom Brady could file a defamation suit, but only after the NFL goes to the Second Circuit court to reverse the decision of a district court judge. Again, the footballs were deflated by a few tenths of a PSI. Does anyone but Roger Goodell, the Patriots organization, Patriots fans and Tom Brady really care that much?
My one question about the NFL’s stance now: In the Wells Report, Brady was found to be “at least generally aware” of the scheme to deflate footballs below the 12.5-psi minimum.
But in the NFL’s 15-page brief submitted to the judge in advance of Wednesday’s conference, the NFL writes: “The commissioner suspended Brady for having ‘approved of, consented to, and provided inducements in support of’ a scheme to tamper with the game balls. And for having ‘willfully obstructed the subsequent investigation.’
But how did we get from being at least generally aware of a scheme to deflate game balls to having “approved of, consented to,” and providing inducements to aid a scheme to deflate footballs?
Peter is going to get himself suspended if he keeps daring to ask questions like this. I would give my opinion on this, but that would be parsing this whole story out more than I really care to. The NFL seems like they are making things up as they go along to make their case seem better than it truly is.
Sunday night’s Hall of Fame Game marked the first one with the new point-after-touchdown rule. After a touchdown, a team will have the option to place the ball at the 15-yard line for the one-point conversion kick (the equivalent of a 33-yard field goal); or to place the ball at the 2-yard line if the team chooses to go for a two-point conversion.
When I was in Latrobe, I ran into long-time special-teams coach Danny Smith, and he asked me a question I hadn’t considered: If you choose to kick the extra point, and the defense jumps offside and gets flagged for an offside penalty, can you change your mind and choose to go for two? With the half-the-distance penalty, that would put the ball at the one, and you might have a lot of teams choosing to go for two if you could snap from the one.
Peter was all about asking how many times a field goal kicker missed the extra point as a reason for moving the extra point back, yet how many times has the defense jumped offside on an extra point?
It happened nine times in 2014. It's the penalty that happened on "0" down when looking at the chart.
Defenders only jumped offside on an extra point nine times during 2014. Yet, Peter acts like this is a game-changing question that makes the new field goal rule even that much more interesting.
So I checked with the league, and indeed, the answer is yes. After an offside call with the ball at the 15-yard line, a coach could take the penalty and put the ball at the 10-yard line for the PAT, or take the half-the-distance penalty and choose to go for two at the one-yard line.
How many times have you seen Tom Brady take a slight leap from the one-yard line and push the ball over the goal line with extended arms? Or Drew Brees? That, to me, is a huge part of this new rule, and could lead to a lot of changed minds after five-yard penalties on PATs.
What if defenders jump offside 10 times during the 2015 season? Man, what an intriguing scenario for a situation that happens a lot!
Peter, who has been a huge proponent of the new extra point rule, wants to make it seem exciting like this new rule now adds a whole new dimension to an NFL game. Well, there were 8 missed extra points in the NFL last year and 9 times the defense jumped offside. So if Peter thinks a rule should be changed because a missed extra point occurred 8 times, how can he try to make it seem like a defensive offside that happened 9 times is a huge part of the new rule? Of course, Peter didn't do any research before writing MMQB, but I like how 8 missed extra points isn't a significant number, but he gets all excited about how a scenario that only happened 9 times last year will make the new extra point rule that much more thrilling.
One of the interesting things about having a staff of young people is the generation of ideas I’d never have thought of. Robert Klemko had one as we headed south in the first couple of days of the training camp trip.
You should play Madden against a player.
Yes, playing a video game is a brilliant new idea Peter had not quite gotten around to thinking of yet.
Funny thing: Players really care about their rating. Evans was fuming when he saw 20 receivers were rated higher than he was. “The ratings are crazy,” Evans said. “All the years, all the money I’ve been wasting on Madden, the hard work I put in on the field, getting hit in the head, knees hurting, and I still can’t get a 90 rating overall. Twenty other receivers are rated higher than me. It’s crazy, man. It hurts, man. I am a little bitter.”
Yeah, well, Mike there are 20 receivers better than you in the NFL right now. So there's that.
Still 7-7. But I had fourth-and-28 from my 12-yard line. I was going for it. What’s there to lose? Nothing. What’s there to gain? Fun!
I chose a deep pass. I have no idea what McCoy chose to do. All I know is Klemko told me to wait till the last second to throw. ”Hit the green button, wait a little, and then hit the blue button,” Klemko said.
Manziel was getting rushed. I waited … and just as Manziel as about to get leveled, I hit the blue button. Way down the left side, backup wideout Taylor Gabriel was free, his corner having tripped on the play. And the ball nestled into Gabriel’s hands. “Yes! YES! YES!” I screamed. Easy touchdown. Easy 88-yard touchdown. On fourth-and-29.
King wins! King wins!
This is some of the bullshit which explains why I don't enjoy playing video games against other people. I realized a few years ago that it's no fun to lose to someone who has no clue what he's doing on these games. I don't handle it that well.
“Way to go on that Brady thing.”
—New Hall of Fame member Ron Wolf, passing commissioner Roger Goodell at the Pro Football Hall of Fame’s yellow-jacket ceremony Thursday night in Canton.
Wolf did not appear sarcastic.
I can only wonder how many PSI below the appropriate weight some footballs can be at Lambeau Field when it is cold as hell out on the field If the cold in New England can decrease the PSI in a football, how much will the PSI decrease in the freezing cold winters of Wisconsin?
In the off-season, the Chicago Bears’ new coach, John Fox, hired former 49ers defensive coordinator Vic Fangio as his defensive coordinator. Fangio, in his four seasons running the San Francisco defense, had some good games against the Packers—and, well, I’ll be—the Bears host the Packers on the first Sunday of the NFL season.
Yes, I'm sure John Fox hired Fangio simply so he could win two games against the Packers every season.
• Aaron Rodgers versus San Francisco with Fangio as defensive coordinator: 0-4.
• Aaron Rodgers versus every other defensive coordinator: 76-34.
It’s not quite so glaring when you look at the numbers, and it’s probably more an indictment of the Packers defense. Green Bay put up 25.3 points per game on offense against Fangio in those four games, and Rodgers’ passer rating was a slightly below-his-norm 96.0.
Typical Peter King. He uses a statistic and then admits he's providing a misleading statistics, but alas, wants his original point to still stand.
"Here's a statistic about how Aaron Rodgers can't beat a Vic Fangio-led defense and here is a conclusion I've drawn about that. If you really pay attention then you see it isn't really Rodgers' fault that the Packers have lost to a Vic Fangio-led defense four times and the Packers offense probably has nothing to do with Rodgers' 0-4 record against the 49ers, but let's not do that. Let's pretend this statistic from me means something."
The four Titans’ preseason games will be televised live in Hawaii, birthplace and place of residence and schooling for the first 17 years of the life of Marcus Ardel Taulauniu Mariota.
I mean, Hawaii is pretty much Nashville.
Ten Things I Think I Think
3. I think Seattle safety Kam Chancellor is a heck of a player, obviously. Who doesn’t think so? Likeable guy too. But holding out for a new deal after two years of a five-year contract is simply a non-starter.
This from the guy who thought the Vikings should have paid Adrian Peterson more money in order to negotiate a truce with him and have him show up to training camp. Peter suggested this while Peterson had three more years on his contract with the Vikings. So Peter thinks Chancellor shouldn't be holding out for more money with three years left on his contract, but he's all about Adrian Peterson getting more money with three years left on his contract. Consistency, thy name isn't entirely "Peter King."
In the first two years of the deal, he made $12.55 million, including bonuses. In the last three years, he is slated to make $16.875 million, including bonuses but not including incentives. You might say that $5.6 million a year for a top-five NFL safety is too little, and I might agree … except that the contract, in 2013 dollars, was very much a market-value deal. Chancellor signed it. Seattle has had a practice of working on players’ contract with a year left, or when they reach free agency. Even if it means sacrificing Chancellor for the season (I don’t think that will happen, but it could), Schneider will do more damage with his roster by giving in than by holding firm.
But giving more money to a guy who missed the entire previous season due to suspension and is among the highest-paid players at his position in an effort to get back in this player's good graces and entice him to report to training camp? It's a brilliant idea.
4. I think this is one good reason why it’s harder to play quarterback in New York than in most markets: Geno Smith was booed at the Jets’ open (free) scrimmage at MetLife Stadium on Saturday night. I mean, booed on Aug. 8, in a practice. I’m all for fan freedom to do whatever the heck they want, but that is just stupid. Boo the guy when he stinks in a game. But in his first fortnight of training camp with a new offense? What is wrong with people?
Maybe they thought it was Josh Freeman, Peter. I'm sure booing Freeman is something you can get behind.
7. I think the best thing I heard about Jameis Winston in Tampa is this, from a smart guy in the Bucs’ offices: “Have you seen him in the papers one time since the draft? No.” In other words, he gets that the best thing for a rookie quarterback is to work on his craft and not be this year’s Johnny Manziel.
Wait, the Buccaneers are talking up their rookie quarterback who got compared to Manziel because of his off-the-field issues that he had during college, and in talking him up they are showing he is totally different from Manziel? I don't believe it.
I don't think working on his craft was ever the issue with Winston at Florida State. The issues that others had with him was what he did in the spare time he had when he wasn't working on his craft. So it is good news, but also I wouldn't expect the Buccaneers to say anything different.
10. I think these are my non-football thoughts of the week:
a. Smart column by the Philadelphia Inquirer’s Mike Sielski defending Chip Kelly, and with good reason.
I'm not sure why Peter writes "with good reason," other than he thinks the idea Chip Kelly is racist is ridiculous. It might very well be, but these are the times when I wish Peter had not quit running his "Chip Kelly Wisdom of the Week" section of MMQB where he hung on every word Kelly said as if it were coming from a deity. It would be a really funny section to read right now.
c. Bernie Miklasz’s last column for the St. Louis Post Dispatch on Sunday was in keeping with what Miklasz always does.
Shitty work? Mediocre writing but from a great guy? DON'T HOLD BACK WHAT YOU THINK, PETER! I CAN'T HANDLE THE DRAMA OF YOU WRITING A SENTENCE ONLY TO HOLD BACK ON WHAT YOU THINK!
Which is great work.
Hey, it's the Cardinals Beat Writer's Way. Expect nothing less.
g. Donald Trump. Filterless.
There is a difference in being filterless and saying stupid shit all the time. Not having a filter involves saying things that you believe which may have some form of the truth behind them. I'm not sure Trump means what he says or is being truthful.
h. Eleven days on the road and counting. I have not turned the TV on in my room one time. It isn’t that I don’t like TV. I do. But there’s something about getting away from it for a while, immersing oneself in a new season and jumping into football full-go.
i. For those who wonder, I was traveling from Chicago to Anderson, Ind., during the Hall of Fame speeches. Watched them on YouTube when I got here.
These days, watching videos on a computer is pretty much the same thing as watching videos on a television. Same difference.
j. Coffeenerdness: You know, in desperate times, six shots of espresso in a grande macchiato is not so bad.
Jesus, it's not all the coffee that Peter drinks, but how much he spends on this coffee that blows my mind. Six shots of espresso? I get pissy when my wife buys some drink that costs $3.50 at Starbucks.
o. Bob Cousy, 87. That snuck up on us.
Yes, it did sneak up on "us." I have really been trying to pay attention to when Bob Cousy turned 87, then BAM, the next thing I know it happened.
The Adieu Haiku
On the road again
We've got the Lions today Bonjour, Haloti
Amazing. Every week Peter makes the Adieu Haiku more pointless, aimless and idiotic than the last week's haiku. I don't know how he does it. In a year or two, the Adieu Haiku will consist just of random words thrown together to form the correct number of syllables on each line.
Thursday, October 17, 2013
7 comments Gregg Easterbrook Continues to Complain about the Most Pointless Things He Sees Take Place in Movies
Gregg Easterbrook wrote about fast-paced offenses again last week in TMQ, continued to criticize NFL teams for not making the correct calls on fourth down using his overwhelming grasp of hindsight (except in the case of the Falcons, who went for it on fourth down at the goal line before halftime as opposed to kicking a field goal and this was the difference in the Falcons winning and losing the game), and then generally wrote the same annoying TMQ he writes every week. This week Gregg says the Saints celebrated too quickly and that's why they lost to the Patriots, pimps his book out again, and complains that Hollywood shows people sleeping more heavily than they actually do. Yes, we are at the point where Gregg is criticizing how Hollywood shows that people sleep. It's getting ridiculous.
Has any team ever looked more dead than New England did when, trailing New Orleans, the Patriots turned the ball over twice with less than three minutes remaining?
Yes, many other teams have looked even more dead than the Patriots did against the Saints.
The Patriots looked dead enough to audition as extras for the sequel to "World War Z."
Great joke. Thanks Rick Reilly.
But the Saints were in the process of making a colossal blunder. New Orleans players and coaches were celebrating on the sideline: hugging, slapping hands. Never celebrate when the game isn't over! The football gods punish that sort of thing.
Well, that and the New England Patriots defense punishes this sort of thing by not allowing the Saints to pick up a first down.
In Game 6 of the 1993 NBA Finals, the Phoenix Suns held a seemingly safe lead over Chicago with a minute remaining. Charles Barkley and Dan Majerle began clowning around and mugging to the home crowd. Michael Jordan noticed, and his eyes took on a steely gaze: The Bulls won on a closing-seconds 3 by John Paxson.
The Bulls were down like four points with less than a minute left and when hasn't Charles Barkley mugged for a crowd? It's his thing. Gregg writes great fiction.
Fox analyst Troy Aikman said Bill Belichick made this call because he didn't trust his defense to stop New Orleans. Actually, the New England defense is playing strangely well this season -- ranked fifth in points allowed. Belichick made the call because he thought the Patriots could convert, and they needed the ball in order to score. Instead an accurate pass was dropped. New Orleans takes over on the 24, and the exodus to the parking lot begins.
But verily the football gods rewarded the Patriots for being miserable failures on fourth down through fault of their own and helped them get the ball back? The football gods reward teams for dropping crucial passes?
One snap later, the Saints would make the first of four colossal errors. New Orleans dawdled coming up to the line and, seeing the play clock about to expire, Drew Brees spent the Saints' final timeout. Trading a timeout for 5 yards was a bad move, since a walk-off would have left the Saints in field goal position anyway.
Yeah, because making sure the Saints get a first down so they could drain the clock and win the game shouldn't have been the Saints #1 priority. Ensuring they don't have to gain 5 extra yards to get the first down and drain the game clock isn't important at all. Gregg is brilliant when using hindsight.
Why would a team in the driver's seat need to conserve its last timeout?
They really wouldn't need to. But wait! Gregg has the ability to use hindsight and he knows why the Saints could have used this timeout.
It is always good to have a timeout in your pocket: They can be useful on defense as well as offense.
Just in case the Saints need to stop the clock on defense, which would allow the Patriots to huddle and possibly draw up a play that helps them win the game. Logic would dictate that if a team on offense has no timeouts then it isn't always smart to call a timeout and allow that team on offense the luxury of time to get everyone on the same page. We all know if Sean Payton had saved a timeout and then used that timeout while on defense then Gregg would have criticized Payton for calling a timeout and giving Tom Brady time to regroup the offense. Gregg would then say you should never call timeout and give a quarterback like Brady a chance to regroup. No matter whether the Saints used this timeout on offense or defense, Gregg was going to find a way to criticize them because they lost the game.
Another snap later, New Orleans made a second colossal blunder. Facing third-and-7 on the New England 21 with 2:33 remaining, Brees threw incomplete -- stopping the clock.
Wait, so stopping the clock by calling a timeout on offense is a bad move, but stopping the clock on defense is a good move? Gregg just wrote that the Saints could have used their timeout on defense instead of using it on offense, but now he criticizes the Saints for throwing an incomplete pass that stopped the clock with more than two minutes remaining. Does Gregg realize a timeout stops the clock? See, I told you that no matter what the Saints did, Gregg would criticize them because they lost the game. He thinks the Saints should use a timeout to stop the clock on defense, but then criticizes the Saints for throwing a pass and stopping the clock on offense.
Also, doesn't fortune favor the bold? The Saints were being bold and trying to pick up the first down, so why didn't fortune favor them?
Considering the Patriots' winning touchdown came with five seconds showing, if on this snap the Saints had simply run up the middle for no gain, they almost certainly would have won. Instead, because New Orleans stopped the clock before the two-minute warning, New England was able to get the ball back with 1:13. What a blunder by Saints coaches.
This is why the Saints using their last timeout on offense wasn't a big deal, because if the Saints defense had called a timeout on the last drive it would have stopped the clock for the Patriots offense.
Another completion puts New England on the New Orleans 17; Brady spikes the ball at 10 seconds. The New Orleans defense looks disordered -- didn't the network already declare the game over?
The Saints can't hear the broadcast so what the broadcasters have stated is of no relevance to the Saints at this point in the game.
Lacking a timeout, the Saints cannot pause to collect themselves.
But calling a timeout would have also helped the Patriots better collect themselves. The Saints had time to collect themselves in the same manner the Patriots offense had time to call a play they wanted to run. The Saints lost the game because of poor defensive execution. Calling a timeout won't suddenly make Jabari Greer a better defender or make Rob Ryan call a defensive play that allowed Greer to have safety help. The Saints didn't need a timeout to get this done because it was all about execution and the Saints didn't execute.
On the winning down, there were fifth and sixth Saints blunders. New Orleans corner Jabari Greer made the high school mistake of looking into the backfield trying to guess the play, rather than simply guarding his man. Receiver Kenbrell Thompkins was single-covered going to the end zone, no safety around, though the pass absolutely had to go into the end zone.
Would a timeout have solved this? It wasn't a miscommunication, but a bad play by Greer that helped Thompkins catch the game-winning touchdown. There appeared to be no confusion on the part of the Saints, but the defensive play call didn't give Greer safety help.
There have been fantastic comebacks before, but never one on which the comeback team looked so totally dead. Just right for preparing for Halloween!
Halloween is over two weeks away. How can a game that happened on October 13 have anything to do with Halloween? This is Halloween Creep!
In football-trend news, you will be assimilated by the offense, resistance is futile. Latest indicator: Week 6 began with the Texans and Jets having the league's two best defenses statistically. Both lost at home, by a combined 57-19.
Yeah, but remember you have always said the defenses will catch up around November?
Stats of the Week No. 6: The Giants are 0-6, have committed 23 turnovers, and are three games out of first place.
It's almost like these three events are related in some way.
Sweet Play of the Week: At Minnesota, the Carolina Panthers ran the flea-flicker -- tailback starts up the middle, then flips the ball back to the quarterback. Rather than pitch deep, Cam Newton threw a tight end screen, with pulling offensive linemen. First down, Cats score on the possession and go on to win in a rout. Your columnist has attended way too many football games, and never seen the flea-flicker used to set up a screen. Sweet.
This was actually a horrendous play when viewed on television or on replay. It looked rushed and like the Panthers had drawn the play up in the sand. Shocker of all shockers, it was the offensive line coach's idea to run this play.
Embattled coach Ron Rivera, excoriated for conservative tactics, went for it twice on fourth-and-1 on the Cats' opening drive, including on fourth-and-goal. Touchdown, and an aggressive tempo was set. Sweet, on a day when fourth-and goal tries by Baltimore and Buffalo were stuffed.
And shockingly these last two teams weren't rewarded for their aggressive tactics by winning the game.
Indianapolis, trailing 13-6, punted on fourth-and-short from the San Diego 40 late in the third quarter, which must have caused millions of people to write the words "game over" in their heads.
No, pretty much only you write "game over" in a notebook during a football game.
Sweet 'N' Sour Special Teams: Behind practice-squad quarterback Thad Lewis, Buffalo scored two late touchdowns to take the favored Bengals to overtime. In the fifth quarter, the teams exchanged punts; after the second, the Bengals' Brandon Tate broke two tackles and returned the ball 29 yards to the Bills' 33, setting up the winning kick. That was sweet. When Cincinnati punted a few snaps before, Leodis McKelvin, the 11th player selected in the 2008 draft, not only did not try to return an overtime punt, he called a fair catch at the Buffalo 7. Very sour -- never fair catch inside your own 10! Had McKelvin stepped away from the ball, there was a good chance of a touchback.
I will concede McKelvin possibly should not have caught this punt, but was there a good chance of the punt being a touchback? How does Gregg know this or is he just making shit up in order to better prove a point he wants to make? I think I know the answer, but there's no telling where that ball would have bounced if it had hit the ground. It could have gone sideways and rolled out at the one-yard line, bounced into the end zone for a touchback, been downed at the three-yard line, or bounced 20 yards and the Bills would have had the ball at the 27-yard line.
My point is that Gregg is making his typical "there was a good chance of X happening" statement when he doesn't have any proof that there was a good chance of X happening.
Here is a New York Times op-ed article spun out of my new book, "The King of Sports."
It's another reminder from Gregg that he has a book out, as if his reminders for the past six weeks went unheeded.
The article notes that Theodore Roosevelt has been treated kindly by historians for his 1905 initiative to reform football; that like Teddy, Barack Obama is a huge fan of football but also concerned with its many defects; I propose that Obama, like Roosevelt, use the bully pulpit of the White House to pressure the football establishment for reform.
I propose that President Obama has more important things to worry about here in the United States and overseas than reforming college football. How about Obama use his bully pulpit to help Congress get along and then perform his Presidential duties and let football reform stay on the backburner for the time being?
The Bills organization praised itself for avoiding the blackout, saying Wilson had "generously" bought remaining tickets. He would have paid about $400,000 -- about $275,000 after taxes, since the purchase was a business expense. So Wilson gets a $95 million gift from taxpayers whose incomes are far lower than his, then is praised for giving back $275,000 -- about a third of 1 percent.
I guess the Bills organization didn't have to buy the remaining tickets to avoid the blackout. The reason taxpayers give this large gift is because they enjoy football and receive a supposed financial benefit in the form of revenue generated for the city because a football team is located there. Yes, Wilson gets revenue as well...you know what, I can't defend the blackout rules because they are stupid. Even if Wilson wasn't that generous, it was still nice for him to buy the tickets to avoid the blackout.
Here is more on how the NFL fleeces taxpayers.
Don't click on the link. It's a link to an article that Gregg has written. He's linking columns he wrote and not mentioning to us that he wrote the column before linking it. It's a page out of the Bill Simmons playbook. "I'm right and here is another example of my opinion to prove that I am right because I agree with myself."
The Football Gods Chortled: The week before, New Orleans lined up to go for it on fourth-and-1, then Drew Brees used a hard count to draw the Chicago defense offside. Now at New England, New Orleans lined up to go for it on fourth-and-1. Brees barked a hard count -- and his teammates jumped offside.
I don't know. It certainly looked like the Patriots defense encroached, which caused the Saints offensive lineman to jump before the snap. This looked like a bad call against the Saints to me.
It's nutty enough that in the movies and on TV, when lovers awake after a night of passionate sex, they're wearing underwear. Apparently actors and actresses get out of bed, put their bras and boxers back on, then return to bed to sleep.
But no Gregg, these people literally do this. I mean, they actually wake up and go put their clothes back on. It happens. I know Gregg has suddenly become all about nakedness over the past year (mainly in reference to Colin Kaepernick and Tim Tebow of course), but sometimes after passionate sex these lovers will get dressed again.
Nuttier still is the Hollywood cliché scene in which, after a night of wild lovemaking with a mysterious stranger, a man or woman awakes to find the stranger gone. That mysterious bombshell with the glowing lip gloss, that mysterious hunk with the square chin, got out of bed, dressed and departed without making the slightest sound.
I feel based on his description here that Gregg has a lot of sexual fantasies about mysterious people having sex.
Again, this happens all the time. I wake up in the morning and will go mow the grass, take a shower and leave the house, go get coffee, or do some other household chore without my wife waking up. What is really nutty is that Gregg thinks a person can't sleep through another person in the room getting dressed. If you are quiet and the other person is dead asleep, this is easy to do. I don't even know why I am talking about this or why Gregg is talking about this.
A common improbable special effect in Hollywood is the space alien or demon with glowing eyes. If the eyes emitted light, wouldn't that stop them from working as eyes?
I don't know. Ask Superman. Also, it's a fucking movie.
These scenes are goofy all right -- but TMQ thinks the most improbable scene in all Hollywood annals occurs in the first "Godfather" movie. The sleazy Los Angeles producer wakes up to find a horse's head in his bed, and the mansion echoes with his screams of terror. The producer's hands and silk pajamas are soaked in bright red blood, possible only if the horse was slaughtered on the premises that morning. (Blood turns brown when exposed to air.) How did mobsters slaughter a horse at the mansion, then enter the bedroom and place a large, heavy object on the bed, soaking the sleazy producer in warm blood, without making any noise?
I don't know. It doesn't seem incredibly hard. They killed the horse and then dragged the horse's head, using more than one person, up to the producer's room and then placed it on the bed while the producer was sleeping. Some people are really heavy sleepers. If this is really the most improbable scene in Hollywood annals then Gregg needs to stop complaining about the lack of realism in movies.
Now back to "The Bridge." After the gorgeous widow awakes to find her lover departed without making the slightest sound, she decides to walk to the barn. Wouldn't that be your first move after a night of wild lovemaking?
If I had horses in stalls that I enjoyed visiting, an underground tunnel that led to Mexico used for transporting guns/illegal immigrants/drugs, and a hired hand who may know where the departed lover went off to (all of which this character has), then yes, possibly this would be my first move.
In the barn, she screams in horror -- the scene is shot and paced to remind of the "Godfather" scene -- after finding her prize racehorse has been slaughtered and suspended from the rafters, as a warning to her from a Mexican drug cartel. The bad guys killed a horse and lifted it into the rafters -- without making any noise.
Nobody said they didn't make noise. They didn't make enough noise to wake someone up in the house. This character lives on a huge ranch for God's sake. Does Gregg hear things happen in the garage two doors down from his house? Probably not, so it's very likely the character wouldn't have super-powered hearing that allowed her to hear a horse being killed out in the stables in the middle of the night.
Polls show the approval rating for the House of Representatives has shrunk to a rock-bottom 5 percent. The 5 percent satisfied with Congress -- who are these crackpots?
And yet, all of these same Congressmen will be re-elected during the next elections. The approval ratings means nothing because districts are so gerrymandered that the incumbents have a great chance of being re-elected.
One of the puzzles of modern politics is the number of hard-core types who devote themselves to denouncing government -- after first ensuring they personally enjoy the pay and benefits of government positions. The majority of the 2012 Republican presidential contenders have spent most or all of their adult lives sheltered in government employment. Pretty sweet hustle: Enjoy government benefits while demanding that others not be allowed to receive them.
The right's man of the hour is Sen. Ted Cruz, who has advanced anti-government vitriol to an art form. Yet he himself spent only a few years in the private sector: Most of his adult life he's been in state and local government. Paul Ryan is the right's intellectual of the hour. He too has spent most of his adult life enjoying the pay and perks of government, after a few years in the private sector -- working for his family's firm, where there was no risk of being fired.
I get what point Gregg wants to make here, but there is a difference in living off the pay and perks of the government, as compared to living a life of public service. I know it sounds corny in this day and age, but many important political figures through United States history have served for a long-time in the public sector. It used to be considered noble to use your talents to help out the general public as opposed to working in the private sector. So there is a fine line between saying these Congressmen have been sheltered in government employment and saying they wanted to work in the public sector. Besides, it's hard to be a real presidential candidate if you don't have a resume showing you have led in other parts of government. A presidential candidate with a short track record of public service is considered unqualified by many to be President of the United States, so many presidential candidates self-select in that they will have enough public service in other areas as mayor, governor, or Congressperson to be considered qualified in running for President.
The home crowd in Massachusetts booed the Patriots when they were ahead in the fourth quarter! The booing was because a red zone drive stalled, culminating in a field goal. The home crowd booed Super Bowl hero Tom Brady when he threw a late pick. What have you done for us lately? Oh wait, what you did was one of the sport's all-time comebacks.
Let's calm it down a little bit. It was a great comeback, but I'm not sure I'm ready to call the Patriots victory over the Saints one of the sport's all-time comebacks. Not to mention it's stupid to criticize Patriots fans for booing Brady. The Patriots fans didn't know Brady would lead a comeback when they were booing him earlier in the game. They just knew he threw a terrible interception at a terrible time to throw an interception.
Oregon Held to 45 Points: The University of Washington was hosting Oregon, which has big-college football's best offense.
The Baylor Bears would like to argue this point.
Because at the NFL level, a one-point win has the same value as a 20-point win, you might think NFL coaches would always go all out for victory. But they don't. In the endgame at Seattle, underdog Tennessee took a short field goal rather than try for a touchdown, then didn't onside kick. Coach Mike Munchak was transparently assigning more importance to ensuring a close loss than trying all out for victory. With the Seahawks likely to make the playoffs, at year's end Munchak can say, "We went to Seattle and only lost by 7."
I hope Gregg really doesn't think NFL head coaches simply try to keep the margin their team loses by down so he can point out how close the game was after the season was over. If a coach loses a lot of games by seven points or less, then wouldn't the owner/GM rightly point out that head coach sure has a tough time winning close games? So even if Munchak brags the Titans only lost by seven points, it wouldn't be enough to save his job based on the fact the Titans lost a close game. After all, in a close game good coaching can make the difference in a win or loss.
Leading 19-17, Green Bay faced third-and-3 at Baltimore, 1:32 remaining, the hosts out of timeouts. Eddie Lacy ran wide for the first down -- then immediately "got on the ground," not trying to extend the play, because he knew the Packers could start kneeling. Smart move.
Doesn't Gregg mean "highly-drafted glory boy rookie from a football factory" Eddie Lacy made a smart move to kneel down? Oh that's right, Gregg won't mention Lacy is a second round pick and went to the University of Alabama because that doesn't fit his agenda that football factory schools only brainlessly churn out NFL talent and second round picks only care about their personal statistics and don't work hard for the team overall.
In the third overtime at Happy Valley, Michigan faced fourth-and-inches on the Penn State 16. Michigan's was the second possession, meaning a field goal wins the game. But the Michigan place-kicker had missed his previous two attempts. Going for the first down would raise the Wolverines' odds of victory via touchdown.
Just like a failed attempt on fourth down would have lowered the Wolverines' odds of victory. Not to mention, the Wolverines averaged 2.75 yards per carry during the game and their starting running back averaged 1.0 yard per carry during the game, so picking up the first down wasn't guaranteed. Plus, a college kicker should be able to hit a field goal on the Penn State 16 yard line.
In the fourth overtime, Penn State faced exactly the same choice, fourth-and-inches on the 16. Penn State ran for it, converted, and recorded the winning touchdown a few snaps later.
Perhaps Michigan should have run to get the first down, but I'm just saying getting a first down would raise the odds of victory, while not getting a first down would increase the odds of defeat. Gregg tries to prove his point by only assuming the Wolverines would have picked up the first down. The Wolverines weren't exactly running the football well during the game. A college kicker should be able to hit a field goal from the 16 yard line. It's not that I like the Wolverines decision here, but Gregg oversimplifies the decision by only focusing on what happens if the fourth down attempt works.
Single Worst Play of the Season -- So Far: Bad enough that Houston was self-destructing at home against the lower-echelon St. Louis Rams. Bad enough that Texans quarterbacks had thrown interceptions returned for touchdowns in four consecutive games, and were about to make it five. When at the end of the third quarter, backup T.J. Yates threw a pick-six to Alec Ogletree of the Rams -- Yates was the sole member of the Texans who tried to catch him.
Here is the video. Ogletree had a Rams player escorting him to the end zone. I get that maybe the Texans should have tried to catch him, but there was no way they were catching Ogletree. If you look at the video, no Texans player had an angle where they could have gotten Ogletree.
Ogletree is a linebacker. The Texans had speed merchants on the field, and rather than chase Ogletree, they stood around watching.
Ogletree ran a 4.7 40-yard dash at the Combine (I left off rounding to the hundredth of a decimal since I know Gregg hates hyper-specificity) and used to be a safety. The Texans may have had speed merchants, but unless they had a guy on the field who ran a 3.8 40-yard dash they weren't catching Ogletree once he had a 10 yard head start on them.
The 98-yard runback took 11 seconds, a long time by football standards, yet none of the Houston speed players chased Ogletree, who's all alone in every camera angle of play.
Right, it took 11 seconds to go 98 yards. Ogletree ran 8.9 yards every second and 2.45 40-yard dashes in covering the 98 yards. Ogletree essentially ran a little faster than a 4.7 40-yard dash in other words (around a 4.48 40-yard dash...which tells me Gregg's time of 11 seconds is wrong) if you take the 11 seconds it took him to run the distance divided by 2.45 40-yard dashes. So if Ogletree had a 10 yard head start on the Texans players then the Texans player would have to run 108 yards in the same time Ogletree ran 98 yards, which means the Texans player would have to run a 4.07 40-yard dash (approximately...if you take 108 yards divided by 40 to equal 2.7 40-yard dashes then divide the 11 seconds by this 2.7 40-yard dashes the Texans player would run) to catch up with Ogletree at the goal line. I'm not sure the Texans have a player that can run that fast. That Texans would have to run a 4.07 40-yard dash just to catch Ogletree at the goal line with a 10 yard head start. To tackle him before he scores the Texans player would have to run a sub-4.0 40-yard dash.
(My math makes sense to me and I'm only using Gregg's numbers. Either way, it was very hard for the Texans to catch Ogletree since he had a head start and had a Rams player escorting him to the end zone)
Next Week: Can the Texans make it six straight games throwing a pick-six?
More importantly, now that Gregg has complained Hollywood doesn't show people being woken up by their lover getting out of bed, Gregg will tackle the issue of why Hollywood never shows characters taking a crap? John McClane was running around New York all through "Die Hard with a Vengeance" while nursing a hangover and didn't once have to take a post-drinking poop? Very unrealistic.
Has any team ever looked more dead than New England did when, trailing New Orleans, the Patriots turned the ball over twice with less than three minutes remaining?
Yes, many other teams have looked even more dead than the Patriots did against the Saints.
The Patriots looked dead enough to audition as extras for the sequel to "World War Z."
Great joke. Thanks Rick Reilly.
But the Saints were in the process of making a colossal blunder. New Orleans players and coaches were celebrating on the sideline: hugging, slapping hands. Never celebrate when the game isn't over! The football gods punish that sort of thing.
Well, that and the New England Patriots defense punishes this sort of thing by not allowing the Saints to pick up a first down.
In Game 6 of the 1993 NBA Finals, the Phoenix Suns held a seemingly safe lead over Chicago with a minute remaining. Charles Barkley and Dan Majerle began clowning around and mugging to the home crowd. Michael Jordan noticed, and his eyes took on a steely gaze: The Bulls won on a closing-seconds 3 by John Paxson.
The Bulls were down like four points with less than a minute left and when hasn't Charles Barkley mugged for a crowd? It's his thing. Gregg writes great fiction.
Fox analyst Troy Aikman said Bill Belichick made this call because he didn't trust his defense to stop New Orleans. Actually, the New England defense is playing strangely well this season -- ranked fifth in points allowed. Belichick made the call because he thought the Patriots could convert, and they needed the ball in order to score. Instead an accurate pass was dropped. New Orleans takes over on the 24, and the exodus to the parking lot begins.
But verily the football gods rewarded the Patriots for being miserable failures on fourth down through fault of their own and helped them get the ball back? The football gods reward teams for dropping crucial passes?
One snap later, the Saints would make the first of four colossal errors. New Orleans dawdled coming up to the line and, seeing the play clock about to expire, Drew Brees spent the Saints' final timeout. Trading a timeout for 5 yards was a bad move, since a walk-off would have left the Saints in field goal position anyway.
Yeah, because making sure the Saints get a first down so they could drain the clock and win the game shouldn't have been the Saints #1 priority. Ensuring they don't have to gain 5 extra yards to get the first down and drain the game clock isn't important at all. Gregg is brilliant when using hindsight.
Why would a team in the driver's seat need to conserve its last timeout?
They really wouldn't need to. But wait! Gregg has the ability to use hindsight and he knows why the Saints could have used this timeout.
It is always good to have a timeout in your pocket: They can be useful on defense as well as offense.
Just in case the Saints need to stop the clock on defense, which would allow the Patriots to huddle and possibly draw up a play that helps them win the game. Logic would dictate that if a team on offense has no timeouts then it isn't always smart to call a timeout and allow that team on offense the luxury of time to get everyone on the same page. We all know if Sean Payton had saved a timeout and then used that timeout while on defense then Gregg would have criticized Payton for calling a timeout and giving Tom Brady time to regroup the offense. Gregg would then say you should never call timeout and give a quarterback like Brady a chance to regroup. No matter whether the Saints used this timeout on offense or defense, Gregg was going to find a way to criticize them because they lost the game.
Another snap later, New Orleans made a second colossal blunder. Facing third-and-7 on the New England 21 with 2:33 remaining, Brees threw incomplete -- stopping the clock.
Wait, so stopping the clock by calling a timeout on offense is a bad move, but stopping the clock on defense is a good move? Gregg just wrote that the Saints could have used their timeout on defense instead of using it on offense, but now he criticizes the Saints for throwing an incomplete pass that stopped the clock with more than two minutes remaining. Does Gregg realize a timeout stops the clock? See, I told you that no matter what the Saints did, Gregg would criticize them because they lost the game. He thinks the Saints should use a timeout to stop the clock on defense, but then criticizes the Saints for throwing a pass and stopping the clock on offense.
Also, doesn't fortune favor the bold? The Saints were being bold and trying to pick up the first down, so why didn't fortune favor them?
Considering the Patriots' winning touchdown came with five seconds showing, if on this snap the Saints had simply run up the middle for no gain, they almost certainly would have won. Instead, because New Orleans stopped the clock before the two-minute warning, New England was able to get the ball back with 1:13. What a blunder by Saints coaches.
This is why the Saints using their last timeout on offense wasn't a big deal, because if the Saints defense had called a timeout on the last drive it would have stopped the clock for the Patriots offense.
Another completion puts New England on the New Orleans 17; Brady spikes the ball at 10 seconds. The New Orleans defense looks disordered -- didn't the network already declare the game over?
The Saints can't hear the broadcast so what the broadcasters have stated is of no relevance to the Saints at this point in the game.
Lacking a timeout, the Saints cannot pause to collect themselves.
But calling a timeout would have also helped the Patriots better collect themselves. The Saints had time to collect themselves in the same manner the Patriots offense had time to call a play they wanted to run. The Saints lost the game because of poor defensive execution. Calling a timeout won't suddenly make Jabari Greer a better defender or make Rob Ryan call a defensive play that allowed Greer to have safety help. The Saints didn't need a timeout to get this done because it was all about execution and the Saints didn't execute.
On the winning down, there were fifth and sixth Saints blunders. New Orleans corner Jabari Greer made the high school mistake of looking into the backfield trying to guess the play, rather than simply guarding his man. Receiver Kenbrell Thompkins was single-covered going to the end zone, no safety around, though the pass absolutely had to go into the end zone.
Would a timeout have solved this? It wasn't a miscommunication, but a bad play by Greer that helped Thompkins catch the game-winning touchdown. There appeared to be no confusion on the part of the Saints, but the defensive play call didn't give Greer safety help.
There have been fantastic comebacks before, but never one on which the comeback team looked so totally dead. Just right for preparing for Halloween!
Halloween is over two weeks away. How can a game that happened on October 13 have anything to do with Halloween? This is Halloween Creep!
In football-trend news, you will be assimilated by the offense, resistance is futile. Latest indicator: Week 6 began with the Texans and Jets having the league's two best defenses statistically. Both lost at home, by a combined 57-19.
Yeah, but remember you have always said the defenses will catch up around November?
Stats of the Week No. 6: The Giants are 0-6, have committed 23 turnovers, and are three games out of first place.
It's almost like these three events are related in some way.
Sweet Play of the Week: At Minnesota, the Carolina Panthers ran the flea-flicker -- tailback starts up the middle, then flips the ball back to the quarterback. Rather than pitch deep, Cam Newton threw a tight end screen, with pulling offensive linemen. First down, Cats score on the possession and go on to win in a rout. Your columnist has attended way too many football games, and never seen the flea-flicker used to set up a screen. Sweet.
This was actually a horrendous play when viewed on television or on replay. It looked rushed and like the Panthers had drawn the play up in the sand. Shocker of all shockers, it was the offensive line coach's idea to run this play.
Embattled coach Ron Rivera, excoriated for conservative tactics, went for it twice on fourth-and-1 on the Cats' opening drive, including on fourth-and-goal. Touchdown, and an aggressive tempo was set. Sweet, on a day when fourth-and goal tries by Baltimore and Buffalo were stuffed.
And shockingly these last two teams weren't rewarded for their aggressive tactics by winning the game.
Indianapolis, trailing 13-6, punted on fourth-and-short from the San Diego 40 late in the third quarter, which must have caused millions of people to write the words "game over" in their heads.
No, pretty much only you write "game over" in a notebook during a football game.
Sweet 'N' Sour Special Teams: Behind practice-squad quarterback Thad Lewis, Buffalo scored two late touchdowns to take the favored Bengals to overtime. In the fifth quarter, the teams exchanged punts; after the second, the Bengals' Brandon Tate broke two tackles and returned the ball 29 yards to the Bills' 33, setting up the winning kick. That was sweet. When Cincinnati punted a few snaps before, Leodis McKelvin, the 11th player selected in the 2008 draft, not only did not try to return an overtime punt, he called a fair catch at the Buffalo 7. Very sour -- never fair catch inside your own 10! Had McKelvin stepped away from the ball, there was a good chance of a touchback.
I will concede McKelvin possibly should not have caught this punt, but was there a good chance of the punt being a touchback? How does Gregg know this or is he just making shit up in order to better prove a point he wants to make? I think I know the answer, but there's no telling where that ball would have bounced if it had hit the ground. It could have gone sideways and rolled out at the one-yard line, bounced into the end zone for a touchback, been downed at the three-yard line, or bounced 20 yards and the Bills would have had the ball at the 27-yard line.
My point is that Gregg is making his typical "there was a good chance of X happening" statement when he doesn't have any proof that there was a good chance of X happening.
Here is a New York Times op-ed article spun out of my new book, "The King of Sports."
It's another reminder from Gregg that he has a book out, as if his reminders for the past six weeks went unheeded.
The article notes that Theodore Roosevelt has been treated kindly by historians for his 1905 initiative to reform football; that like Teddy, Barack Obama is a huge fan of football but also concerned with its many defects; I propose that Obama, like Roosevelt, use the bully pulpit of the White House to pressure the football establishment for reform.
I propose that President Obama has more important things to worry about here in the United States and overseas than reforming college football. How about Obama use his bully pulpit to help Congress get along and then perform his Presidential duties and let football reform stay on the backburner for the time being?
The Bills organization praised itself for avoiding the blackout, saying Wilson had "generously" bought remaining tickets. He would have paid about $400,000 -- about $275,000 after taxes, since the purchase was a business expense. So Wilson gets a $95 million gift from taxpayers whose incomes are far lower than his, then is praised for giving back $275,000 -- about a third of 1 percent.
I guess the Bills organization didn't have to buy the remaining tickets to avoid the blackout. The reason taxpayers give this large gift is because they enjoy football and receive a supposed financial benefit in the form of revenue generated for the city because a football team is located there. Yes, Wilson gets revenue as well...you know what, I can't defend the blackout rules because they are stupid. Even if Wilson wasn't that generous, it was still nice for him to buy the tickets to avoid the blackout.
Here is more on how the NFL fleeces taxpayers.
Don't click on the link. It's a link to an article that Gregg has written. He's linking columns he wrote and not mentioning to us that he wrote the column before linking it. It's a page out of the Bill Simmons playbook. "I'm right and here is another example of my opinion to prove that I am right because I agree with myself."
The Football Gods Chortled: The week before, New Orleans lined up to go for it on fourth-and-1, then Drew Brees used a hard count to draw the Chicago defense offside. Now at New England, New Orleans lined up to go for it on fourth-and-1. Brees barked a hard count -- and his teammates jumped offside.
I don't know. It certainly looked like the Patriots defense encroached, which caused the Saints offensive lineman to jump before the snap. This looked like a bad call against the Saints to me.
It's nutty enough that in the movies and on TV, when lovers awake after a night of passionate sex, they're wearing underwear. Apparently actors and actresses get out of bed, put their bras and boxers back on, then return to bed to sleep.
But no Gregg, these people literally do this. I mean, they actually wake up and go put their clothes back on. It happens. I know Gregg has suddenly become all about nakedness over the past year (mainly in reference to Colin Kaepernick and Tim Tebow of course), but sometimes after passionate sex these lovers will get dressed again.
Nuttier still is the Hollywood cliché scene in which, after a night of wild lovemaking with a mysterious stranger, a man or woman awakes to find the stranger gone. That mysterious bombshell with the glowing lip gloss, that mysterious hunk with the square chin, got out of bed, dressed and departed without making the slightest sound.
I feel based on his description here that Gregg has a lot of sexual fantasies about mysterious people having sex.
Again, this happens all the time. I wake up in the morning and will go mow the grass, take a shower and leave the house, go get coffee, or do some other household chore without my wife waking up. What is really nutty is that Gregg thinks a person can't sleep through another person in the room getting dressed. If you are quiet and the other person is dead asleep, this is easy to do. I don't even know why I am talking about this or why Gregg is talking about this.
A common improbable special effect in Hollywood is the space alien or demon with glowing eyes. If the eyes emitted light, wouldn't that stop them from working as eyes?
I don't know. Ask Superman. Also, it's a fucking movie.
These scenes are goofy all right -- but TMQ thinks the most improbable scene in all Hollywood annals occurs in the first "Godfather" movie. The sleazy Los Angeles producer wakes up to find a horse's head in his bed, and the mansion echoes with his screams of terror. The producer's hands and silk pajamas are soaked in bright red blood, possible only if the horse was slaughtered on the premises that morning. (Blood turns brown when exposed to air.) How did mobsters slaughter a horse at the mansion, then enter the bedroom and place a large, heavy object on the bed, soaking the sleazy producer in warm blood, without making any noise?
I don't know. It doesn't seem incredibly hard. They killed the horse and then dragged the horse's head, using more than one person, up to the producer's room and then placed it on the bed while the producer was sleeping. Some people are really heavy sleepers. If this is really the most improbable scene in Hollywood annals then Gregg needs to stop complaining about the lack of realism in movies.
Now back to "The Bridge." After the gorgeous widow awakes to find her lover departed without making the slightest sound, she decides to walk to the barn. Wouldn't that be your first move after a night of wild lovemaking?
If I had horses in stalls that I enjoyed visiting, an underground tunnel that led to Mexico used for transporting guns/illegal immigrants/drugs, and a hired hand who may know where the departed lover went off to (all of which this character has), then yes, possibly this would be my first move.
In the barn, she screams in horror -- the scene is shot and paced to remind of the "Godfather" scene -- after finding her prize racehorse has been slaughtered and suspended from the rafters, as a warning to her from a Mexican drug cartel. The bad guys killed a horse and lifted it into the rafters -- without making any noise.
Nobody said they didn't make noise. They didn't make enough noise to wake someone up in the house. This character lives on a huge ranch for God's sake. Does Gregg hear things happen in the garage two doors down from his house? Probably not, so it's very likely the character wouldn't have super-powered hearing that allowed her to hear a horse being killed out in the stables in the middle of the night.
Polls show the approval rating for the House of Representatives has shrunk to a rock-bottom 5 percent. The 5 percent satisfied with Congress -- who are these crackpots?
And yet, all of these same Congressmen will be re-elected during the next elections. The approval ratings means nothing because districts are so gerrymandered that the incumbents have a great chance of being re-elected.
One of the puzzles of modern politics is the number of hard-core types who devote themselves to denouncing government -- after first ensuring they personally enjoy the pay and benefits of government positions. The majority of the 2012 Republican presidential contenders have spent most or all of their adult lives sheltered in government employment. Pretty sweet hustle: Enjoy government benefits while demanding that others not be allowed to receive them.
The right's man of the hour is Sen. Ted Cruz, who has advanced anti-government vitriol to an art form. Yet he himself spent only a few years in the private sector: Most of his adult life he's been in state and local government. Paul Ryan is the right's intellectual of the hour. He too has spent most of his adult life enjoying the pay and perks of government, after a few years in the private sector -- working for his family's firm, where there was no risk of being fired.
I get what point Gregg wants to make here, but there is a difference in living off the pay and perks of the government, as compared to living a life of public service. I know it sounds corny in this day and age, but many important political figures through United States history have served for a long-time in the public sector. It used to be considered noble to use your talents to help out the general public as opposed to working in the private sector. So there is a fine line between saying these Congressmen have been sheltered in government employment and saying they wanted to work in the public sector. Besides, it's hard to be a real presidential candidate if you don't have a resume showing you have led in other parts of government. A presidential candidate with a short track record of public service is considered unqualified by many to be President of the United States, so many presidential candidates self-select in that they will have enough public service in other areas as mayor, governor, or Congressperson to be considered qualified in running for President.
The home crowd in Massachusetts booed the Patriots when they were ahead in the fourth quarter! The booing was because a red zone drive stalled, culminating in a field goal. The home crowd booed Super Bowl hero Tom Brady when he threw a late pick. What have you done for us lately? Oh wait, what you did was one of the sport's all-time comebacks.
Let's calm it down a little bit. It was a great comeback, but I'm not sure I'm ready to call the Patriots victory over the Saints one of the sport's all-time comebacks. Not to mention it's stupid to criticize Patriots fans for booing Brady. The Patriots fans didn't know Brady would lead a comeback when they were booing him earlier in the game. They just knew he threw a terrible interception at a terrible time to throw an interception.
Oregon Held to 45 Points: The University of Washington was hosting Oregon, which has big-college football's best offense.
The Baylor Bears would like to argue this point.
Because at the NFL level, a one-point win has the same value as a 20-point win, you might think NFL coaches would always go all out for victory. But they don't. In the endgame at Seattle, underdog Tennessee took a short field goal rather than try for a touchdown, then didn't onside kick. Coach Mike Munchak was transparently assigning more importance to ensuring a close loss than trying all out for victory. With the Seahawks likely to make the playoffs, at year's end Munchak can say, "We went to Seattle and only lost by 7."
I hope Gregg really doesn't think NFL head coaches simply try to keep the margin their team loses by down so he can point out how close the game was after the season was over. If a coach loses a lot of games by seven points or less, then wouldn't the owner/GM rightly point out that head coach sure has a tough time winning close games? So even if Munchak brags the Titans only lost by seven points, it wouldn't be enough to save his job based on the fact the Titans lost a close game. After all, in a close game good coaching can make the difference in a win or loss.
Leading 19-17, Green Bay faced third-and-3 at Baltimore, 1:32 remaining, the hosts out of timeouts. Eddie Lacy ran wide for the first down -- then immediately "got on the ground," not trying to extend the play, because he knew the Packers could start kneeling. Smart move.
Doesn't Gregg mean "highly-drafted glory boy rookie from a football factory" Eddie Lacy made a smart move to kneel down? Oh that's right, Gregg won't mention Lacy is a second round pick and went to the University of Alabama because that doesn't fit his agenda that football factory schools only brainlessly churn out NFL talent and second round picks only care about their personal statistics and don't work hard for the team overall.
In the third overtime at Happy Valley, Michigan faced fourth-and-inches on the Penn State 16. Michigan's was the second possession, meaning a field goal wins the game. But the Michigan place-kicker had missed his previous two attempts. Going for the first down would raise the Wolverines' odds of victory via touchdown.
Just like a failed attempt on fourth down would have lowered the Wolverines' odds of victory. Not to mention, the Wolverines averaged 2.75 yards per carry during the game and their starting running back averaged 1.0 yard per carry during the game, so picking up the first down wasn't guaranteed. Plus, a college kicker should be able to hit a field goal on the Penn State 16 yard line.
In the fourth overtime, Penn State faced exactly the same choice, fourth-and-inches on the 16. Penn State ran for it, converted, and recorded the winning touchdown a few snaps later.
Perhaps Michigan should have run to get the first down, but I'm just saying getting a first down would raise the odds of victory, while not getting a first down would increase the odds of defeat. Gregg tries to prove his point by only assuming the Wolverines would have picked up the first down. The Wolverines weren't exactly running the football well during the game. A college kicker should be able to hit a field goal from the 16 yard line. It's not that I like the Wolverines decision here, but Gregg oversimplifies the decision by only focusing on what happens if the fourth down attempt works.
Single Worst Play of the Season -- So Far: Bad enough that Houston was self-destructing at home against the lower-echelon St. Louis Rams. Bad enough that Texans quarterbacks had thrown interceptions returned for touchdowns in four consecutive games, and were about to make it five. When at the end of the third quarter, backup T.J. Yates threw a pick-six to Alec Ogletree of the Rams -- Yates was the sole member of the Texans who tried to catch him.
Here is the video. Ogletree had a Rams player escorting him to the end zone. I get that maybe the Texans should have tried to catch him, but there was no way they were catching Ogletree. If you look at the video, no Texans player had an angle where they could have gotten Ogletree.
Ogletree is a linebacker. The Texans had speed merchants on the field, and rather than chase Ogletree, they stood around watching.
Ogletree ran a 4.7 40-yard dash at the Combine (I left off rounding to the hundredth of a decimal since I know Gregg hates hyper-specificity) and used to be a safety. The Texans may have had speed merchants, but unless they had a guy on the field who ran a 3.8 40-yard dash they weren't catching Ogletree once he had a 10 yard head start on them.
The 98-yard runback took 11 seconds, a long time by football standards, yet none of the Houston speed players chased Ogletree, who's all alone in every camera angle of play.
Right, it took 11 seconds to go 98 yards. Ogletree ran 8.9 yards every second and 2.45 40-yard dashes in covering the 98 yards. Ogletree essentially ran a little faster than a 4.7 40-yard dash in other words (around a 4.48 40-yard dash...which tells me Gregg's time of 11 seconds is wrong) if you take the 11 seconds it took him to run the distance divided by 2.45 40-yard dashes. So if Ogletree had a 10 yard head start on the Texans players then the Texans player would have to run 108 yards in the same time Ogletree ran 98 yards, which means the Texans player would have to run a 4.07 40-yard dash (approximately...if you take 108 yards divided by 40 to equal 2.7 40-yard dashes then divide the 11 seconds by this 2.7 40-yard dashes the Texans player would run) to catch up with Ogletree at the goal line. I'm not sure the Texans have a player that can run that fast. That Texans would have to run a 4.07 40-yard dash just to catch Ogletree at the goal line with a 10 yard head start. To tackle him before he scores the Texans player would have to run a sub-4.0 40-yard dash.
(My math makes sense to me and I'm only using Gregg's numbers. Either way, it was very hard for the Texans to catch Ogletree since he had a head start and had a Rams player escorting him to the end zone)
Next Week: Can the Texans make it six straight games throwing a pick-six?
More importantly, now that Gregg has complained Hollywood doesn't show people being woken up by their lover getting out of bed, Gregg will tackle the issue of why Hollywood never shows characters taking a crap? John McClane was running around New York all through "Die Hard with a Vengeance" while nursing a hangover and didn't once have to take a post-drinking poop? Very unrealistic.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)