0 comments Ten Things Things I Think I Think Peter King Has Not Thought Of: Terence Moore Likes Expanded Replay Now Edition

Usually there is a common thread that runs through these Things I Think I Think Peter King Has Not Thought of, but there really isn't one this time. I would say these are all "bad ideas" but that's not entirely true. These are all articles I think that deserve some mention but don't merit an entire post written about them. These are the links I have been staring at for a few months/weeks/days/hours/minutes and want to comment on in some way. As written in many religious texts, let's start with Mitch Albom, as that's how it is always supposed to be.

1. Mitch Albom isn't writing a book called "The Five People You'll Meet in Heaven Who Used the N-Word," but he did write about the NFL looking to prohibit use of the N-word on the field. I think Mitch just likes writing "the N-word."

To me, the N-word is a hateful slur based on a person’s skin color. Yet because my skin is also a certain color, I am told I cannot I criticize its usage.

It’s not my word.

Every word is Mitch's word! Look for more clarification in his new book, "The Five Words You Will First Hear in Heaven," which will be available as soon as he writes this column for the "Detroit Free-Press" where he lies about being at a basketball game last week with John Wooden and Carmelo Anthony.

But sooner or later, everyone, black and white, will stop saying it in public. This is inevitable.

I severely doubt this. I had someone walk in my office and use the word twice just a few days ago. It wasn't a white person and was a college educated African-American female. She's not a stupid person and didn't use the word in an angry manner, but a joking manner. Just saying, it's a word that people probably won't stop using. Maybe someone will read what I just wrote in 100 years, laugh, and then drive off in their hovercraft. Who knows?

Instead, I’m referring to a very vocal minority — at least I believe it’s a minority — of athletes, entertainers, commentators and advocates who are mostly African American, and who claim the NFL’s possible initiative is a move that, as one such critic for huffingtonpost.com wrote, “emboldens whites who assert their privilege over use of the N-word.”

Huh? Look. I don’t shake the rafters of this idea and find sociological ghosts of white supremacy.

Exactly. Mitch writes schmaltzy books about heaven and every once in a while writes a column containing a few easily detected lies. In what spare time he has, he berates those who work in the field of customer service and wonders why he's so perfect and the world around him is so flawed. He's got no time to think about white supremacy because this barista at Starbucks just dared to repeat his order back to him. It's ass-kicking time.

So critics who say the NFL has no right are wrong. The field is a stage; NFL owners are the directors. If you feel compelled to scream the N-word, you can do it, without a paycheck, in the parking lot.

A trickier debate is why black players want to cling to the word in the first place.

Yeah, stupid black people always clinging to racial slurs. Good point, Mitch. 

Admittedly, I am not black,

ADMITTEDLY, Mitch is not black! He wants the truth to be out there now. Mitch Albom is not black nor is he Asian. He's white. He wants there to be no further misunderstandings about his race, so he finally admits he is indeed not black. All further confusion has now been avoided.

But that doesn’t make me — or other whites, Latinos, Asians, Native Americans, etc. — stupid or insensitive. We recognize history.

Admittedly, Mitch does recognize history.

Jews were systematically executed, gassed and buried in mass graves — all less than 70 years ago — and they don’t defiantly cling to the K-word. Nor do Chinese Americans boast the C-word, Italians the W-word, Germans the K-word, etc.

Mitch admits he's not capable of understanding how it feels to be called the N-word, so he would never put himself in the shoes of those who do understand this, but he feels free to question why those people wearing these shoes continue to use the word. He knows he can't understand, but he definitely can judge.

The N-word fight is unique. And while nobody should dictate private conversations, if the NFL is going to suspend a white player for using the N-word at an off-season concert or suspend an African-American referee for allegedly saying it to an African-American player, then why the shock at a yellow flag? It’s 15 yards, not a lifetime ban.

As I said at the time the NFL was considering this, it is nice to try and get rid of the N-word, but is very, very difficult to actually put this plan into action. It would have been nearly impossible for the NFL to properly enforce.

Eventually, I believe, people will get tired of defending this hateful slur. In years to come, it may even seem silly. But this is how things change, in fits and starts, coughs and sputters, some easy, some hard.

That's what she said.

It is not my word. In time, it won’t be anyone else’s.

The day can’t come quickly enough.

When that day comes, Mitch can write the book, "The Four People Who Used the N-Word and Didn't End up Heaven You Will Talk To When You Reach Heaven."

2. Hey, guess what? Terence Moore doesn't want anyone overreacting to the expanded use of instant replay. 

Terence may be losing his mind because HE is the one who was overreacting to the use of expanded instant replay here, here, here, and here. But it's his readers who need to stop overreacting about the use of expanded replay, right?

I'm having less of a problem with these new guidelines regarding home-plate collisions.

Did I just type what I just typed? Yep, and upon further review, I don't even need smelling salts. I'm changing my mind (well, sort of) on the implementation of the replay thing and the home-plate thing for the Major Leagues this season, because I'm looking at what's happening to other sports these days by comparison when it comes to changing stuff.

Of course Terence's reasoning for not hating expanded replay has to suck. He doesn't like the idea because it's a good idea, but because other sports are messing up the way they use instant replay. Okay then.

About the replay thing: all baseball officials seek to do is make sure they are using the best technology possible to determine the accuracy of nearly everything that happens on the diamond.

This is literally the exact argument I was making in the four columns I linked above where Terence Moore argued strongly against expanding replay. I'm glad Terence has finally come to his senses and realized, "Hey, it may not work perfectly all the time, but if MLB has the technology to get the calls right they should do it."

Then Terence begins discussing how other sports mess up replay, which apparently means MLB's expanded replay is a good idea.

So the replay thing and the home-plate thing?

I'll survive.

Oh sure, NOW Terence will survive after spending the better part of a year arguing about why expanded replay is such a terrible, no-good idea. It's almost like he should give ideas a chance to be implemented before stomping his foot down angrily that this idea will ruin the sport of baseball.

3. I don't know if this is a joke or not, but Woody Paige thought John Elway should have drafted all Stanford players in this year's NFL Draft. 

See, it would show "school spirit" and why the hell school spirit is important in drafting players to an NFL team is beyond me. 

Will John Elway and the Broncos draft guard David Yankey in the first round, defensive end Trent Murphy second, inside linebacker Shayne Skov third, free safety Ed Reynolds fourth, running back Tyler Gaffney fifth, fullback Ryan Hewitt sixth and center Khalil Wilkes seventh?

No, he did not. 

Elway — now the general manager, which he really was before, anyway, as well as the executive vice president of football operations — does in title and in fact rule over the Broncos' draft.

During the Duke's reign, the Broncos have selected 23 players. Nineteen are on the Broncos' roster, three more are with other NFL teams and one is out of the league.

So of course if Elway drafted players from Stanford then those players would immediately become valuable NFL players who contribute to the Broncos team. Obviously. 

Only one draft pick in the Josh McDaniels error, er, era remains. Demaryius Thomas is the last man standing.

You like how Tim Tebow isn't mentioned here at all. Woody had an absolute infatuation with Tebow (check my archives...I am too lazy to link all the articles) when he played for the Broncos and now that era of Woody's writing career is washed-over like a family who doesn't mention that their son was engaged three prior times, including once to another man, at this son's wedding to a woman (see, that's how Bill Simmons writes, it sucks when someone does overly-long analogies, right?). 

Then Woody goes through the Broncos drafts under Elway because...because he needed to kill some space.

On offense, they wish for a guard, a wide receiver and a running back. On defense, they want a middle linebacker, a cornerback, a defensive end and a safety. Seven positions, seven picks.

So, what's the problem with drafting the seven quality players listed in the first paragraph?

Other than they may not be the best available player at each position available when the Broncos were drafting? Nothing. 

Does John Elway have the guts, the daring-do, the audacity, the school spirit to draft seven players from Stanford, his alma mater?

I think the word Woody was looking for is "stupidity." 

Would that be a blessing, or a Cardinal sin?

There we go. Woody Paige seems to have written an entire column so he could write this last sentence. In the realm of bad ideas, this last sentence being an important part of this realm, drafting all players from Stanford is a doozy. 

4. Lowell Cohn had very different reactions to Aldon Smith's detention at the airport and the charges against Colin Kaepernick that he sexually assaulted a woman. From experience, it's known that Cohn doesn't particularly seem to like Colin Kaepernick. It's interesting that Lowell's initial reaction to each incident was so different.

Here is Lowell's initial reaction to Aldon Smith's being detained at the airport.

Lots of people are dumping on Aldon Smith right now, saying he’s a bad guy and the Niners need to dump him. Maybe that’s true and maybe that’s what will happen. But be cautious. We know very little about what he did and said at LAX today.

Wait and see. Probably a good idea. 

Here is Lowell's initial reaction to Colin Kaepernick being accused of sexual assault. 

Here are Kaepernick's three tweets combined as one for concision:

"The charges made in the TMZ story and other stories I've seen are completely wrong. They made things up about me that never happened. I take great pride in who I am and what I do, but I guess sometimes you have to deal with someone who makes things up. I want to thank all of the people who have shared their encouraging sentiments. I assure you that your faith is not misplaced."

If he means the public's faith in him as a quarterback that is way off the point. If he means the public's faith in him as a good person and a responsible adult, well that is the subject of the debate. His lack of concern for the woman, his total preoccupation with himself makes you wonder what kind of person he is.

It makes you wonder what kind of person Colin Kaepernick is for responding to accusations a person has made. I guess denying the accusations is not the right thing to do? 

Lowell's reaction to whether Smith had been arrested...

As far as I know he’s not been arrested. Has he?

I’m reading he said he had a bomb. Is that a fact? Did he literally say “I have a bomb?” Or did he say something else? I don’t know. Do you?

Lowell's reaction to whether Kaepernick had been arrested...

It's not the intention of this column to discuss his legal issues -- if there even are legal issues. So much is vague and unrevealed. To come out against Kaepernick or against the woman in the hotel drama would be irresponsible and unfair to Kaepernick, to the woman and to the legal process.

At no time does he express the least particle of concern for the young woman in question, a woman who apparently woke up in a hospital alone and disoriented, with no knowledge of where she was or how she got there.

Well, it seems Lowell has a pretty good idea of what happened in the Kaepernick situation, but is withholding judgment in the Smith situation. Lowell questions the police report in the Smith situation but believes the police report in the Kaepernick situation. Why would the police tell the truth? Why would a young woman lie? 

Lowell about not rushing to judgment in the Smith case...

I literally do not know what went down. It’s important not to rush to judgment. Be cautious until we learn more.

Lowell rushing to judgment in the Kaepernick case...

He should have expressed concern about the woman. He should have looked people in the eye. He should have spoken in complete sentences. He should have answered questions to the extent he could answer questions -- this is an ongoing legal matter.

It's crummy behavior to impugn a woman who arrived at a hospital alone and unconscious -- and had apparently been unconscious previously in his presence.

Isn't it interesting how Lowell starts spit out the facts presented as truth when it comes to Kaepernick, but questions the facts presented when it comes to Smith? It's almost like he has an agenda. 

5. Phil Mushnick doesn't defend Donald Sterling, except he sort of does. 

Longtime NBA followers, executives, employees and media know Clippers owner Donald Sterling as a moneyed fool. Not a terrible man,

The fact Phil Mushnick describes Donald Sterling as "not a terrible man" and has a history of saying things like the Nets should be called the Brooklyn N-Word's, then it's not hard to get the feeling Mushnick and Sterling aren't necessarily two peas in a pod, but probably have neighboring pods, possibly with balconies that connect. 

He’s someone best — and easily — ignored, especially at 81.

It might have been easier to ignore him if he didn't own an NBA team with a roster full of the same minorities he has shown time and time again he discriminates against. It's hard to ignore one of the owners of the 30 NBA teams. It's sort of a high-profile position. 

Yes, what he allegedly said was painful, indefensible and inexcusable, except why would we expect him, at 81, to be less loony and more discreet and clear-headed than he was at 75 or 78?

Oh yes, the guy who owns an NBA team and has a girlfriend who could be his granddaughter is too old and not clear-headed enough to know what he's saying. It seems Phil Mushnick is going with the "Livia Soprano" excuse for Phil Mushnick. He couldn't have known what he was saying because he's old! Old people don't know what they are doing or saying, so just ignore being clear-headed has never shown itself to be a problem for Donald Sterling prior to this incident. 

Visit any assisted living facility. Or think of that aunt or uncle all of us have known and suffered with a wince because we knew they were off. And they come in all races.

Yes, but there's no evidence that Donald Sterling was off. He comes off very clear in those audiotapes. Good try though. 

Not everyone, at 81, should reasonably or humanely be held accountable for whatever ugly comments come out their mouths.

At least keep that in mind.

Okay, well keep this in mind. Before using the "Livia Soprano" excuse, perhaps it's more easily believed if Donald Sterling had ever indicated prior to this incident he wasn't clear-headed or seemed off. I know, the facts are so annoying aren't they?

6. Rick Reilly writes a column where he pretends like he's not trying to rehabilitate his friend Lance Armstrong's image. 

Lance Armstrong is happy. In fact, he looks better at 42 than I've ever seen him, less gaunt in the face, thicker in the chest, bluer in the eyes. I found a man sitting in his den, surrounded by his seven Tour de France chalices, his 3-year-old, Olivia, on his lap, kissing him and laughing.
Really pissed me off.

Did it really, Rick? Did it really piss you off? It doesn't seem like it did and why should it?

"There's a lightness to my life now," he says. "I have no obligations. I have no schedule other than raising my kids, what time my tee time is, how far I'm gonna ride my bike that day. Life has become very simple very quickly. ... I'm not in a hurry to get anywhere. Nobody's waiting on the other end."

Rick doesn't take the whole, "Lance Armstrong is a good guy because..." angle in this column, but takes the "Lance Armstrong is at peace and knows he was wrong..." angle that tells the reader Armstrong is happy with where he is, which of course gives the reader the feeling Armstrong has accepted his fate. It's hard to stay mad at a person who accepted his fate and seems happy, no?

"I'm at the bottom, but I like establishing a base. When I was diagnosed, they told me I had testicular cancer. Then it spread to the abdomen. Then the lungs. Then the brain. I was devastated. But at that point, it was as bad as it could get. And I was like, 'OK, now, I know everything. Now I have to get better from here.' I'm in that place now. Not cancer, but now I know everything. I'm at the base."

So Lance Armstrong is saying getting testicular cancer put him at the same base as lying about using PED's, ruining people's lives in an effort to cover up his PED use and then finally admitting it on national television to Oprah? They both put him at the same place? Hmmm...interesting way to look at it if that's what he means. It seems a truly contrite person would recognize deadly cancer you lack control over puts you at a lower rock bottom than making the decision to lie for a decade about using PED's would put you. But hey, Lance isn't comparing these two things, even though he's sort of comparing these two things.

I see a much calmer guy, more patient. I see a guy who used to be surrounded by a dozen people, now alone. I see a guy who used to live and die by the hundredth of a second, now not entirely sure what day it is.

Lying and deceiving does take a toll on a person.

"I remember [when I was diagnosed with cancer] thinking, 'I might not see Christmas. I might not see my son [Luke, now 14] graduate high school.' But this doesn't threaten that. I'm going to see Christmas. I'm going see him graduate."

Oh good, well I'm glad things worked out for Lance and he is able to have perspective (focused entirely on himself of course) about how his lying hasn't ruined his life. Maybe he should check in with Frankie Andreu and see how he's feeling about all this.

Me: "Don't you realize how many people hate you over this?"

Him: "I just don't care. In the past, I cared what people said, thought or wrote. I thought it would affect my livelihood. But that's been decimated now. When I walk through airports now, a guy could say, 'Hey you f---ing a--h---! You're the biggest jerk on the face of the earth!' I'd say, 'Right on, pal.'"

I'm glad Lance doesn't care what people think. This is a huge change from when he was still lying about using PED's and didn't care what people thought as he blazed a trail of lies and deceit across the world, angrily challenging those who dared to out him as the fraud he truly was.

No endorser will touch him. Nobody wants him to speak, even for free. He is banned from any marathon, triathlon, bike race, 10k, 2k sneak, even if it's for charity. He'd like to write another book, work with cancer patients again, maybe have a role in sports. But that all seems eons away.
And yet it doesn't scare him.

This is very brave of Lance Armstrong to not be scared. After all, he's been at a rock bottom exactly like this when he was diagnosed with cancer. I am able to separate Lance Armstrong the person from Lance Armstrong the activist for cancer funding and research. One guy I like, the other I do not like. I'll spare you the rest of the column, but rest assured it turns out rehabbing Lance's image was really about Rick Reilly. Rick decides (in a not-subtle nudge to the reader) that he's gotten his pound of flesh from Armstrong so he shouldn't want any more.

7. Murray Chass, as he does every year, rails against the unfairness of baseball teams calling up prospects after May to get one more year of arbitration out of them. 

It's not against the rules and if the players want to change it then they should do so when time comes to discuss a new CBA. MLB teams should be able to do as they see fit with their players. Sometimes it's unfair, but it doesn't mean these teams are unethical or cheating in following the rules set out by the agreed-upon CBA.

There are no rules or provisions in the collective bargaining agreement that intrude on clubs’ rights to call up players when they choose. However, union officials in recent years have scrutinized club practices because clubs have increasingly used callup dates to affect players’ subsequent eligibility for salary arbitration and free agency.

Which isn't wrong because there are no rules or provisions in the CBA that intrudes on them doing this.

In recent years, when teams left their good young prospects in the minors for the first couple months of the season, they said, as if reading from the same script, that the players needed more time in the minors to work on this or that aspect of their game.

But when I asked Jeff Luhnow, the Houston general manager, why the Astros bucked the trend and called up Springer so early, he said, “He’s an exciting player. What we needed to see this year was getting off to a good start and making sure he was used to right field.

The Astros are in a different position from other teams who choose not to call up their top prospects from the minors. They have a very bad team and ratings in Houston are pretty low. They need to create some excitement that their building for the future is going to pay off and it's not like the players that were on the major league roster in place of Springer were exactly lighting it up on the field.

In his first 11 games, through Saturday, he was hitting .186 (8 for 43) with no home runs and two runs batted in. The Astros nevertheless expect major production from the 24-year-old right-handed hitter. Manager Bo Porter put him in the clean-up spot in the lineup in only his third game.

But I'm sure Murray thinks the fact Springer is struggling supports the reasoning that he didn't need more seasoning in the minors before being called up to the majors and it was totally worth it to lose a season's worth of arbitration eligibility.

If a team has a player in the minors who might pitch some games or might get some hits that would help a team win a division title or a wild-card spot but it leaves that player in the minors to undermine his eligibility for salary arbitration, the team is cheatings its fans and its other players. 

The fans aren't cheated if they understand the reason the team is not calling up these players partially in order to maximize their arbitration eligibility. I'm sure Nationals fans aren't complaining about the extra season they get with Stephen Strasburg on the team's roster.

That is called a lack of integrity.

No, it's called "Managing your team's roster in the short-term and long-term so as to be fiscally responsible and competitive over these times."

Some fans have argued that they would rather have their team have the player for a seventh season before free agency rather than lose him after six seasons. But that is short-sighted thinking.

Actually, this is the exact definition of long-term thinking.

Most baseball people would say the chance of winning doesn’t come along often enough to sacrifice a chance to win by failing to do everything possible, including brining up a player who could make a difference.

Most of these teams that don't call up a prospect aren't just that one player away from either winning a World Series or not making the playoffs at all. I know Murray prefers to think of these prospects as coming up and making an immediate impact that dramatically changes the team, but that's not always the case.

Union officials watch the game go on but are unlikely to challenge the practice with a grievance. As wrong as it is, it would be a tough case to win.

Mostly because there's nothing in the CBA that says MLB teams can't control the roster in this fashion as they see fit. That doesn't stop Murray Chass from writing this same article every single year.

8. The Mets sent out a fan loyalty letter that has Mike Vaccaro very angry at the team.

It's a silly letter, so let it go. But as I said when I covered the Matt Harvey column, it seems that sportswriters will grab onto any controversy in order to push a column out. In this 24 hour sports cycle even the smallest of events can be blown up into a huge ordeal.

So now, to celebrate this feel-good start to the season, this is what the men who operate the Mets ask of you:
A loyalty oath.

It was silly, it was stupid, and it was not important enough to take up an entire column screaming about.

“As players, we can tell you that what happens in the clubhouse and what happens in the stands — players and fans together, believing in each other — makes a tremendous difference with what happens on the field.”

Translation: We’re winning and the stadium is empty. What’s wrong with you?

The team wants fans to show up. They are trying to guilt them into doing so.

Attendance has dwindled every year since 2009, when a smaller ballpark maxed out season seating at around 3.4 million. You know why? Because the Mets are one of two teams — the barely Quad-A Astros being the other — who have had losing seasons in every one of those years.

It sounds like this letter is just a conduit by which Mike Vaccaro can bash the Mets front office and ownership. It's not really about a letter, it's about the Mets not fielding a competitive team.

And this letter is a good way to hasten the growing ennui. Questioning the fealty of fans, challenging them to prove their worth not only as Mets fans but True New Yorkers? Why? Because of one winning homestand?

Other MLB teams so different things to get fans to the stadium. The Braves essentially give away tickets and other teams create a "nation" where the fans feel like they are a part of a group and this encourages them to show up to games. It's all marketing. This letter was stupid, but was just a way to ignite the passions of Mets fans.

Win, and the people come. Win, and the people spend. Win, and there is no need to gather signatures so they can be presented to the players before a Subway Series game as proof that people still care. 

Goodness, read that sentence again: Who would ever think this is a good idea? What’s next, a pep rally? A sock hop? A bonfire in the quad?

You get the point. This letter got Mike Vaccaro really fired up. Well, Vaccaro probably wasn't really fired up but he is able to bash the Mets ownership and management on autopilot and this letter was a good, cheap way to do this and he went for it.

9. Would Mike Vaccaro rather the Mets call out their fans like this? 

If they had, I'm sure Vaccaro could have found a way to bash Mets management for taking the negative route and calling out Mets fans for not attending games. In fact, if the Mets had done this then very few words of Vaccaro's column would change. It could essentially be the same column. So no matter which route the Mets take, positive rah-rah, or negative in calling out their fans, I would bet they lose in the eyes of Mike Vaccaro. But since I'm not Peter King, I won't dedicate two different numbers to the same topic. On to the Nets and their Tweet...

I guess what Brooklyn management forgets to remember is the Raptors have been in Toronto longer than the Nets have been in Brooklyn. Plus, the Nets have competition in New York for the heart and love of NBA basketball in the form of the Knicks. The Raptors have no competition in Canada. Plus, the Raptors haven't been very good of late, so it's easy for Toronto fans to get pumped up about a playoff appearance. The Nets were expected to do well this year. Basically, it's probably not a good idea to try and call out fans via Twitter if you are the management of said team. It's probably okay for a player to call out the fans, but it seems odd when the organization does it.

10. I not sure I have ever experienced the hysteria that surrounded the Charlotte Hornets. I grew up a Boston Celtics fan, but I went to Charlotte Hornets games and it was loud and fantastically exciting. Very easy to get caught up. I remember the December 1988 game against the Bulls clear as day. Anyway, here is an oral history of the 1988 Charlotte Hornets. What's remarkable to me is how the Charlotte area fell out of love with the Hornets (thanks again, George Shinn!) as quickly as they fell in love. Again, I'm a Celtics fan but it still makes me sad to think about it all.

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

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

After the disgusting, dissatisfying loss in the Super Bowl, 

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

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

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

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

Calm down and read on.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why not?

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

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

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

Elway came back and produced another Broncos comeback to relevance.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

They weren't fired three times though. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

give counsel to Elway and Fox

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

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

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

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

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

He has been there and done that with Elway.

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

And Shanahan is a free, literally, agent.

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

12 comments Woody Paige Now Has Further Evidence the Patriots are Evil

Woody Paige is not happy Josh McDaniels is working for the New England Patriots. McDaniels was released from his contract with the Rams and was free to get employment anywhere he wanted. Out of left field for no reason, he chose to get employment as an offensive assistant (and probable offensive coordinator next year) for the Patriots, a team he has no ties to other than having worked for them four years ago under the same head coach and the same quarterback. Then New England, using their magical psychic powers about who they would play in the next round, hired McDaniels before the Steelers-Broncos game as if to pretend they don't hold supernatural powers and didn't know the Broncos would win this game. Of course McDaniels was hired close enough to the Broncos victory over the Steelers to set off Woody Paige's bullshit meter.

Woody Paige also wants us to remember Spygate and that the Patriots are super-duper cheaters who are trying to ruin the playoff chances of the Broncos by revealing John Fox's coaching secrets to the Patriots. Apparently Woody has absolutely zero regard for Mike McCoy's offensive system and misses the entire point that teams have known for a while what the Broncos are going to do, they just can't stop it because the Broncos are executing very well right now. McCoy threw in new offensive wrinkles against the Steelers and I would imagine he will do it against the Patriots as well. So it isn't like McDaniels knows the entire Broncos offense.

I do get why some people have a problem with the Patriots hiring McDaniels. It seems like they want a person on staff with familiarity to the Broncos team and system. Of course the Patriots started talking to McDaniels before the Broncos beat the Steelers, but I guess that is seen as irrelevant. The Patriots beat the Broncos just a month ago in Denver without the help of McDaniels, so that may be seen as irrelevant as well. Not to mention John Fox is running a different offensive scheme (the option and all of that) and defense from what McDaniels ran while in Denver. Again, this point is probably seen as irrelevant by Woody. I think I would have more of a problem with this if McDaniels asked to get out of his contract with the Rams to go to New England, which there isn't any indication happened. I would also have a problem if this type of thing was against the rules, which it isn't. Maybe it should be, but it isn't against the rules right now.

Josh McDaniels is reuniting with Bill Belichick​ for "I Spy: The Second Sequel."

I wish I could say Woody goes ahead and gets the whole "Spygate" joke out of the way, but these jokes are all through this column. Spygate happened 4-5 years (depending on when you believe Spygate started) ago. Yes, McDaniels taped six minutes of the Niners practice last year and got fined $50,000. It's over now. We should let it burn.

The Broncos certainly should not hold a walkthrough practice at the razor stadium on the eve of Saturday night's playoff game. They don't know who'll be watching, taping and stealing signals, schemes and plays.

(shaking head sadly) Simply because these jokes are easy, doesn't make it right to use them. On second thought, it doesn't seem like Woody is even joking when he says this. We wouldn't want the Broncos super-secret offensive game plan of running the ball to set up long passes to be revealed to the public.

Will Belichick and McDaniels be rehiring Steve Scarnecchia too? The former Patriots and Broncos videographer is the son of Patriots longtime assistant Dante Scarnecchia​,

Dante Scarnecchia? Just like "Dante's Inferno" which took place in Hell. Do you know who lives in Hell? Satan. Do you know who doesn't like Satan? God and Jesus. Do you know who likes God and Jesus? Tim Tebow. So this game is pretty much good versus evil. I hope this puts the hiring of McDaniels in perspective. It's just another way for Satan to claim a victory for his favorite NFL team, the New England Patriots.

He was a willing, admitted participant in both Spygate and McSpygate.

Has Woody contacted the police to notify them of this yet? He really should. The Patriots clearly have hired McDaniels to tape Broncos practices in order to discover the secrets of the Broncos offense that Woody Paige claims McDaniels already knows by being the Broncos head coach over the previous two years.

What a crock of a coincidence this is.

You mean like the coincidence that the Broncos signed Willis McGahee this past offseason FULLY KNOWING he played for the Ravens last year in preparation for the Broncos playing the Steelers this year in the playoffs? So the Broncos sign a player who has played the Steelers twice a year and is familiar with their blitz schemes? What a crock of a coincidence. Next year, the Broncos play the Panthers in Carolina. Well guess who used to coach in Carolina and knows those locker rooms and players inside and out? John Fox. To make matters worse, Dante Rosario played for the Panthers and guess who he plays for now? The Broncos. You're telling me Rosario and Fox can't tell the Broncos every tendency of the players that Fox drafted and Rosario played with while in Carolina? What a crock of a coincidence. Carolina may as well forfeit that game.

Belichick brought in Kid McCoach as an "offensive assistant" just in time to interrogate him before the Patriots' rematch with the Broncos and 32 of McDaniels' players and nine assistant coaches from last season's team.

Hey, remember that time the Broncos fired Josh McDaniels and this allowed him to choose employment with any other NFL team? Yeah, me too. Did McDaniels sign a non-compete with the Broncos I'm not aware of?

The Broncos fired McDaniels on Dec. 6, 2010, because of failure as a coach (17 losses in McD's last 22 games), his poor player-people-press skills

So let me get this straight. I am supposed to believe Josh McDaniels is a failure as a coach and lacks player-people-press skills. Yet I am also supposed to believe this failure who nobody likes is not enough of a failure that it would prevent him from easily helping the Patriots beat the Broncos (again) with his knowledge of the Broncos offense. Does Woody really believe the Patriots would re-hire McDaniels as offensive coordinator for the only purpose of beating the Broncos (again) in the playoffs? I am also supposed to believe his player-people-press skills aren't so bad this wouldn't prevent him from being re-hired by one of his previous employers as an offensive assistant? It's not like the Patriots hired McDaniels only for the playoffs. He is going to be the offensive coordinator next year as well, so Belichick and the Patriots organization must have some positive feelings about McDaniels. I would have two problems with the McDaniels hiring if either of these were true:

1. McDaniels had never worked for the Patriots before. But he had. As the offensive coordinator, which not-ironically is the same position he will probably hold again next year.

2. McDaniels was only being hired for the playoffs. This isn't true though. He appears to have a permanent position with the Patriots. If McDaniels goes somewhere else after this season, this something about that may smell foul, but every indication is McDaniels will work for the Patriots organization next year as the offensive coordinator.

He can provide inside information and tendencies of players and coaches, especially the offensive coordinator he worked closely with, Mike McCoy.

There are a few problems with this statement. First, the Broncos run a different type of offense under Fox than they did under McDaniels. Second, if Josh McDaniels can immediately stop the Broncos offense because he knows the tendencies of players and coaches on the 2011 team, these are also tendencies that are shown on tape the Patriots would watch anyway in preparation for the game. Third, knowing what the Broncos are going to do hasn't been a problem all year. As much as Woody doesn't want to believe this, the Broncos' offense isn't normally fooling everyone with its complexity. It is the execution of the Broncos that has them in the AFC Divisional Round. Fourth, if Mike McCoy's offense is so similar to the one the Broncos were running under McDaniels perhaps he should offensively coordinate his players some new plays and change their tendencies. After all, wouldn't in-depth knowledge of the team be a problem if any NFL team played their ex-head coach a year or two after that ex-head coach got fired?

Some aspects of his old playbook passing offense were retained.

That's not McDaniels' or the Patriots fault some aspects of the old playbook passing offense were retained. If the Broncos played the Rams or any offensive assistant to the Broncos under McDaniels this year they would have had the same issue of the passing offense being somewhat familiar. If the Broncos don't like this, change things up.

The Patriots would claim that they know all about the Broncos after defeating them Dec. 18 in Denver.

Which would be valid reasoning. What's better to figure out what the Broncos want to do against the Patriots than to use what the Broncos did against the Patriots a month ago?

Yes, but they knew all about the Jets and other NFL teams when they chose to tape defensive coaches' signals illegally during games over a span of several seasons.

I swear this was the next sentence. This is so completely irrelevant to the game this Saturday, it hurts my head. Woody's basic point is the Patriots are cheating by not breaking any rules in hiring McDaniels because they cheated another time. It's silly. Is Woody saying the Patriots taped the Broncos practices prior to playing in December? If so, that's a serious accusation. Or is Woody simply writing two sentences back-to-back that don't make much sense together?

Although Belichick won't acknowledge it publicly, McDaniels will return to his former role as coordinator next season.

I think it is pretty much a given McDaniels will be the offensive coordinator in New England next year. That's the indication I am getting from everything I read. The Patriots have no obligation to acknowledge this.

No league rules are being violated by the Patriots in the hiring of an assistant in the postseason, but NFL commissioner Roger Goodell​ should order McDaniels, who was fined $50,000 last year by the commissioner, to wait to join the Patriots until O'Brien leaves.

On what basis? Does Woody really believe McDaniels can tell the Patriots anything more in-depth about the Broncos that the Patriots don't already know by playing the Broncos earlier this year? I don't get why the commissioner should order McDaniels to wait to join the Patriots until O'Brien leaves. As Woody admits, no league rules are being violated.

I love Woody's attitude of, "I don't want Josh McDaniels to coach for the Broncos anymore because he's a huge failure. I don't want McDaniels to be able to coach for any other NFL team that may compete with the Broncos at some point either because he isn't a big enough failure to cause the Broncos to scrap his entire passing playbook nor was he such a failure the Broncos fired all of the assistant coaches that worked under him."

The Broncos gave up deciding where McDaniels coached once they fired him.

What's to keep the Broncos this week from temporarily using fired Dolphins coach Tony Sparano​, who faced the Patriots twice this season, as a consultant?

Nothing. Do it.

Spagnuolo coached the Giants' defense in the XLII Super Bowl victory over the Patriots. Why can't he work for the Broncos on Saturday?

He absolutely can. Get it done.

Because that's not right.

Actually Woody is correct. That wouldn't be right if the Broncos did this because there would be one big difference in the Patriots hiring McDaniels and the Broncos hiring Sparano/Spagnuolo. The difference is Josh McDaniels has ties to the Patriots and used to work for them as offensive coordinator, while Sparano/Spagnuolo have never worked for the Broncos.

The Broncos did rehire Mike Shanahan​ as quarterbacks coach in 1989 a few weeks after he was fired as Raiders head coach, and weeks before the Broncos played the Raiders a second time.

HOW WAS THIS ALLOWED? WHY DIDN'T THE COMMISSIONER FINE THE BRONCOS AND IMMEDIATELY DEMAND THE BLOOD OF A VIRGIN AS REPAYMENT FOR THIS TRAVESTY?

The personnel decision made by owner Pat Bowlen​, not coach Dan Reeves​, in midseason also was wrong.

Let's ignore the Broncos have hired the ex-head coach of a rival 20 years ago because Woody doesn't want it to be relevant to the present discussion. I like how Woody tries to explain Dan Reeves didn't make the decision, as if this absolves the Broncos from any wrongdoing compared to the Patriots hiring McDaniels. What Woody (intentionally) leaves out is that Bill Belichick is the de facto General Manager of the Patriots, so as the head coach/General Manager he would have the authority to hire a coach to his staff. It isn't like Belichick is going above Robert Kraft and his General Manager's head (because New England has no GM) to make the hire. I would assume this move has the blessing of Robert Kraft.

But it was not as blatantly shameless as the manipulative maneuver by Belichick.

Because hiring the ex-head coach of a division rival you play twice a year is so much less shameless than hiring the ex-head coach of a conference rival a team will normally play once a year at most. Because, you know, it isn't like Mike Shanahan knew the Raiders offense that he was running EARLIER THAT VERY SEASON HE WAS HIRED BY THE BRONCOS and the Broncos and Raiders play twice a year or anything. Woody sees no wrongdoing here. Move on, everyone.

Nevertheless, the Broncos will be out for revenge against the Patriots. They are 2-0 in the postseason against New England.

The Broncos will especially be out for revenge now that the Patriots had the audacity to hire the Broncos ex-head coach, the same guy Broncos fans don't like and ran out of town. How dare the Patriots hire a coach the Broncos had no interest in keeping around because he was a huge failure.

McDaniels' knowledge about the Broncos probably won't help the Patriots. He's not a read-option, run- oriented coach.

Who cares if the facts don't support the idea McDaniels will be able to provide the Patriots crack the key to the Broncos offense, who cares if the Patriots beat the Broncos earlier this year without McDaniels on staff, and who cares if the Broncos did something similar to a division rival 20 years ago. It's still a huge outrage that Josh McDaniels got fired and had the audacity to look for a job with the team he had the most prior success with. Why would McDaniels choose to go to back to work for a successful organization in the hopes of eventually getting another head coaching job? Only a crazy person would do that!

Everything he has touched in the past two years has turned to compost.

Then Woody should have nothing to worry about with McDaniels on the Patriots staff. Why is Woody throwing a hissy fit if McDaniels is so incompetent? Since McDaniels is a huge failure and everything he touches turns to shit, then the Broncos have nothing to worry about with him on staff.

The Broncos were 3-10 before McDaniels slithered away, and the Rams, under his guidance as offensive coordinator this season, finished 31st in offense, last in the league in points averaged per game (12.1), and had a 2-14 record. In his last season as coordinator with the Patriots, 2008, they didn't make the playoffs.

Of course the Patriots also went 11-5 that year without their starting quarterback. This is just a small detail and the fact remains the Patriots didn't make the playoffs with their backup quarterback, further proving McDaniels incompetence that nevertheless has Woody so worried about McDaniels' presence on the Patriots staff.

Perhaps the Hoodie-Hoodie Jr. reunion will be more advantageous to the Broncos. But it smells.

Maybe it smells, but it isn't against rules. I would have a much bigger problem if McDaniels didn't have prior work experience with Tom Brady and the Patriots offense. It's not like he was hired specifically for his vast knowledge of the Broncos not-so-complex offense. McDaniels also has knowledge of the Patriots offense and working with Tom Brady.

Honestly, if the Broncos are afraid their 2010 head coach would be able to give game-changing information to the Patriots (which it doesn't seem the Broncos are worried at all), then perhaps the Broncos should not be running a similar system to the one McDaniels instituted with Mike McCoy as his offensive coordinator in Denver. The best team will win on Saturday, but it annoys me to know Woody Paige thinks it will be despite or because of Josh McDaniels presence on the Patriots coaching staff. I really am not sure it matters.