Last week Gregg Easterbrook revealed he believes all of these regular season games the Broncos are winning the regular season could affect their ability to win the Super Bowl this year. His reasoning was something about the Colts teams with Peyton Manning only won one Super Bowl while winning a lot of regular season games and he is afraid the Broncos with Peyton Manning will do the same thing. I don't know, the playoffs can be kind of a crap shoot, so I don't think there is such thing as winning too many regular season games. Gregg also struggled with the idea of neurons and how they affect the human body. He thought everyone on the show "Revolution" should implode due to neurons affecting their body---you know what, let's just say Gregg criticized a science fiction show for its lack of accuracy and leave it at that. This week Gregg notices the Patriots have a pretty powerful offense, though he doesn't reveal exactly how this affects his belief the Patriots are still being punished for Spygate and may never win a Super Bowl again due to what he sees (saw?) as their cheating ways. Oh, and Gregg criticizes weasel college coaches while ignoring the fact two weasel coaches are meeting in BCS National Title game.
Mooooooo … that's the sound the Houston Texans' logo made as the team
was roped and branded by the New England Patriots on "Monday Night
Football." At rodeos, the steer puts up a fight.
I don't know how much Gregg gets paid to write TMQ, but if it is $25 per column then it is just too much money.
Teams that face Houston will study film of how the Flying Elvii shut the
Texans down, forcing them to play from behind, which Houston isn't
built to do.
All NFL teams have to do now is get out to a 21 point lead over the Texans. If only teams had thought of this strategy previous to seeing the Patriots employ the strategy then the Texans would not have won a game yet this year. Score as many points as possible, why didn't anyone else think of that? So what Gregg states is true, but painfully obvious. The Texans don't like to play from behind, but good luck getting a big lead on them.
Holding the ball -- New England recorded 27 first downs -- also kept the
Moo Cows' offense on the sidelines, causing the Texans to press when
they did have possession.
The Texans had 19 first downs and kept the ball for 29:11 in this game. The Patriots had 27 first downs and had the ball 30:49 of this game. The Patriots did a good job keeping the Texans offense on the sidelines but the time of possession was nearly equal. I hate it when statistics ruin assumptions.
In 2007, the Patriots set the NFL's single-season scoring record,
averaging 37 points per game. This year's New England offense is nearly
as good, averaging 36 points per game. By some measures this year's
Patriots are superior -- plus-24 for turnovers versus plus-16 in 2007,
28 first downs per game versus 25 per in 2007.
"First downs per game" is kind of a dumb way to determine how good a team's offense is. A team could score a touchdown on every pass they throw and have zero first downs in a game. What is remarkable is that Gregg shows us exactly why "first downs per game" is a potentially faulty measure of an offense's ability in his next sentence, yet is too dumb to see how he just showed the fallacy of his own statistic.
The 2007 New England offense featured quick-strike deep passes; the 2012
iteration is seventh in the NFL in rushing, and therefore controls the
ball better.
Right, the Patriots average more first downs per game in 2012 because they may not be as much of a quick-strike team as they were in 2007. So "first downs per game" is probably not an accurate measure of an offense's prowess all of the time.
Right now, the New England offense rules the NFL. Yet it starts more
undrafted free agents (Wes Welker, Ryan Wendell, Danny Woodhead) than
first-round choices (Nate Solder, Logan Mankins).
It's a convenient time to do this, because Gregg's theory that undrafted players are better NFL players than highly drafted players seems true, so now Gregg is going to go on a "look at how many undrafted players Team X starts" rant. What Gregg fails to mention is the Patriots best running back is a second round pick (and he is the listed starter on the Patriots depth chart) and the defense has quite a few first and second round picks starting for them. They have six first or second round draft picks on defense if I am counting correctly.
The quarterback is a sixth-round selection who ousted the first overall choice in the draft.
How incredibly misleading this statement is. Drew Bledsoe was "ousted" as the New England Patriots starting quarterback because he got injured, then was traded from the Patriots after having an excellent, almost Hall-of-Fame-worthy career with New England. But to Gregg, Tom Brady simply ousted the first overall choice in the 1993 draft and there is no nuance in there at all. Let's ignore Drew Bledsoe's excellent career in order to help prove a point Gregg Easterbrook wants to make.
Against Houston, the Patriots got long touchdown catches from two
players shown the door by the rest of the league (Brandon Lloyd, cut by
four teams; Donte' Stallworth, cut by five teams).
Gregg conveniently leaves out Stallworth is a first round pick and has signed two contracts over his career for over $30 million each, not to mention his contract was terminated by the Browns because he was convicted of manslaughter. He killed someone while driving his car, which means he was "cut" by Gregg Easterbrook. Again, no nuance is required. Leave out the facts that don't support Gregg's point.
In an NFL in which firing assistant coaches is a New Year's Day
tradition, Dante Scarnecchia has been the Pats' offensive line coach
since Bill Belichick arrived.
It has helped Scarnecchia keep his job that the Patriots offensive line has always performed very well and there was no need to fire him. Success usually helps a coach keep his job.
Watch Patriots line film, and what you won't see is an offensive lineman
standing around doing nothing. On almost any NFL snap, even on good
teams, there's at least one offensive lineman who brushed his man then
just stood there looking at the play.
"On almost any NFL snap, even on good teams, there's at least one offensive lineman who brushed his man then just stood there looking at the play."
Wow, does Gregg really convince himself his bullshit statements are true? So on nearly every single NFL play there is one offensive lineman who is doing nearly nothing? I find this to be false and Gregg has no proof his statement is true. It's just another example of him lying to his readers by making assumptions based on how he wants the NFL to be.
"Standing in" was seen as proof of quarterback manhood. Marino showed
that the quick release is the smarter way -- just get rid of the ball to
the first guy who's open, or get rid of the ball, period.
Gregg Eastebrook should be a quarterbacks coach. He's so knowledgeable. So you mean a quarterback needs to throw the ball to the open man or get rid of the ball if he is going to get sacked? Do tell more stories about this revolutionary way of playing quarterback that only Gregg Easterbrook knows of (Gregg assumes he is the only one to think of this revolutionary way of playing quarterback simply because he refuses to do research that would prove otherwise).
The Patriots change looks both between games and during games.
You mean the Patriots change strategies during AND after a game? They must be the only NFL team to ever do this...unless you count all of the other NFL teams that do this on a weekly basis. The Patriots simply have the personnel to do it better and just do it better overall.
The New England offense is so confident and proficient that often the
primary receiver isn't covered by anyone. Against the Jets on
Thanksgiving, no one covered Welker -- one of football's all-time most
productive receivers -- at the goal line. Against Houston, no one
covered Hernandez at the goal line.
So twice over an NFL season is considered "often?" Oh that's right, Gregg is making shit up as he is prone to do. I guess we can say the Patriots "often" beat the Texans on Monday Night Football. They did it once, so that's "often" apparently.
The football gods are smiling on this offense.
Well, until the Patriots lose in the playoffs at which point Gregg will claim the football gods were not smiling on the Patriots because of Spygate.
Many high-scoring offenses -- the Oregon Ducks in 2010, the 2005 Colts,
the Jim Kelly Buffalo Bills -- are unstoppable in the regular season
when defenses are giving 90 percent, then cool off in the postseason,
when defenses give 100 percent.
The amount of facts that Gregg makes up in the course of a column is astounding. So far in this column Gregg has claimed the Patriots primary receiver is "often" left completely uncovered, on nearly every single play in the NFL once offensive lineman is standing around doing nothing, and defenses only give 90% during the regular season. I don't understand how ESPN lets one of their columnists absolutely just make things up. I'm not a professional writer, but when someone makes up a fact I call that "lying," which the last time I checked is not encouraged in sports journalism.
We'll see if the Patriots' attack is once again unstoppable during the regular season, then declines in January.
Yes, we'll see if the Patriots' attack "declines" in January, much like it didn't do last year when they were in the Super Bowl.
As for the Moo Cows -- they trailed 21-0 in the third quarter and punted
on fourth-and-1. TMQ wrote the words "game over" in his notebook. Who
cares if Houston was on its own 18? Who cares if Houston went for it on
fourth down and failed twice in the first half?
Who cares? Apparently Gregg cares since he is constantly telling us that "fortune favors the bold" and reminding us that when a coach chooses to go for it on fourth down it tells his team that he is super-serious about winning the game and it makes his team play better. Of course when a team does go for it on fourth down and fails, Gregg always has another fourth down attempt that team should have tried to convert and explains THAT TIME this team didn't go for it on fourth down is the reason they lost the game. As it pertaint to this situation, ignore the fact they failed converting on fourth down twice in the half, it was the conversion the Texans didn't try which made a difference in the game. There's always a reason why Gregg's imaginary rules fail and it is never because the rule in itself is just stupid or doesn't work 100% of the time.
The media panel that chooses the Heisman deserves the censure for endlessly picking quarterbacks or running backs. Is it because full-time professional sportswriters truly believe only
these positions matter -- or because they never look at anyone other
than quarterbacks and running backs?
Even when Gregg is correct, he is wrong. The Heisman voters are blinded by seeing quarterbacks and running backs make exciting plays, yes, but if you ever look at how the Heisman vote is laid out you would see the votes are aligned with the region each candidate plays in. So the Heisman voters aren't able to watch every college game, tend to vote for the Heisman candidate in their region and usually vote for a player who has made exciting plays over the season. A sportswriter who covers the Pac-10 hasn't seen enough of Chance Warmack to know if he is the best player in the country, but he has seen enough of Johnny Manziel's highlights and statistics to know the impact Manziel has on a game.
Often NFL receivers, especially star receivers, either don't block on rushing plays or make a half-hearted push, then give up.
It's infuriating how much Gregg just makes things up. So "often" NFL receivers don't block on rushing plays or don't block very aggressively? Considering we just learned "often" means "twice" to Gregg then I guess he is probably correct. I guess this means Gregg Easterbrook often hates Jewish people and thinks they worship money above all else?
Cam Newton lined up in a college-style backfield with a tailback on one
side and a fullback on the other, faked to the tailback going right on a
zone-read, then ran left behind a "wham" block by the fullback, legging
it 72 yards for a touchdown.
What Gregg fails to mention is Steve Smith blocked for Newton 30 yards down the field on this play, even though we all know star receivers often don't block on rushing plays or give a half-hearted push and then give up.
Sour for Baltimore was that cornerback Chris Johnson, assigned to man
coverage on Garçon, simply stood there and let him run past. Johnson was
busy making the high school mistake of looking into the backfield
trying to guess the play, rather than staying glued to his man.
Josh Morgan ran a down-and-in, and also was open -- because cornerback
Cary Williams was making the high school mistake of looking into the
backfield trying to guess the play.
Though City of Tampa had five to cover three downfield, cornerback E.J.
Biggers did not "keep the receiver in front of him." Biggers looked like
he was concerned with stopping a quick curl for the first down; when
Avant went deep, Biggers let him. But there were only 16 seconds
remaining, Philadelphia had to reach the end zone: when the other team
has to reach the end zone fast, keep the receiver in front of you! Sour.
These are three examples of Gregg leaving out where players were drafted because this information doesn't support a contention he is trying to prove. All three of these cornerbacks were 7th round draft picks, which you wouldn't know since Gregg didn't mention it. If these were first round picks you can bet Gregg would have mentioned their draft position. Gregg is such a liar and a deceiver. It's shame there are stupid people who fail to see his hypocrisy and cherry-picking of data.
This makes it worth bearing in mind that in the offseason the Jaguars,
perennially low in NFL attendance, passed on a chance to trade for
Tebow. He was available for Jacksonville's third draft choice, which
instead was spent on punter Bryan Anger. He's playing OK.
Anger is fifth in the NFL in net punting, eighth in punting average, and is seventh in punts downed inside the 20 yard line. I'd say that is better than "ok," but Gregg is praying no one clicks on that link to see how full of shit he is.
But a losing team that lacks support really needed a punter more than
the most popular local football player in a generation? New owner Shahid
Khan was billed as a master of sports marketing.
Those damn facts get in the way again! Khan's purchase for the Jaguars team wasn't finalized until after the Jaguars had drafted Anger, so he never even had a chance to trade a 3rd round pick for Tim Tebow. But still, much like how Gregg often blames Jewish people for wrongs committed in the world, let's blame Khan for something that isn't his fault at all.
Then Gregg contemplates God and how long it took him to create Earth. This type of discussion has no place in a football column, but Gregg has to fill space so he can later brag about how long TMQ is.
My new book "The Leading Indicators"
has been out three weeks, is off to a very good start in stores, and
would make a better gift than lasers that drill into your head.
"The Leading Indicators" is a novel about a contemporary American family caught in the Great Recession.
It's not even close to being Christmas time yet and Gregg wants us to go out and buy gifts for our family? It's Christmas Creep! We can't buy a book sooner than a day or two before Christmas, isn't that what Gregg's constant bitching about Christmas Creep tells us?
In addition to being a promise-breaker, Bielema speaks of himself using
the royal We, saying as he slunk out of Wisconsin, "We gave them three
straight Big Ten championships." He wasn't referring to the Badgers, he
was referring to himself. Right ho, Your Majesty!
Bielema is referring to him and his coaching staff, so therefore he uses the term "we." It makes sense as long as you don't play stupid and not want it to make sense.
TMQ's Law of Weasel Coaches holds: When you hire a coach who's only in
it for himself, you get a coach who's only in it for himself.
Or you will appear in the BCS National Championship Game within a few years. You know, either way. Brian Kelly is a "weasel coach" in the eyes of Gregg Easterbrook because he broke his promises at Cincinnati to go Notre Dame and Nick Saban is a "weasel coach" because he broke his promises to the Miami Dolphins to coach at Alabama. When hiring a weasel coach you will get a coach who is out for himself or you will get a coach that helps your college appear in the BCS National Championship Game.
So Tuberville looked someone in the eye, gave his word, and one day
later broke his word. Why does the University of Cincinnati want to hire
a head coach whose word means nothing?
Because Tuberville wins games and Cincinnati just lost their head coach to the University of Tennessee. What is their other option, hire a coach with no head coaching experience or isn't signed to a contract? Most head coaches with experience and are worth a shit are signed to a contract with another school, so college teams have to lure coaches under contract to coach their team. Gregg lives in this fantasy world where the only coaches who change teams are those not under contract, but if a coach is any good then he will be under contract. So for that coach to take another job he has to be a "weasel coach." Tommy Tuberville wins football games, which is what keeps athletic directors employed. Is Gregg really this stupid to think colleges give a shit about a coach giving "his word?" College coaches come and go, it doesn't make it right, but Cincinnati just lost their head coach to another college and wanted to hire a competent coach for their team.
San Diego leading 27-10, the Chargers ran a successful fake punt on
fourth-and-2 from their own 28. Sweet! Fourth-and-short is always the
best time to fake a kick.
I guess this is as opposed to faking a kick on first or second down. I like how Gregg acts like he is telling us something when what he is saying is obvious. You mean it is easier to convert a fourth-and-short than a fourth-and-long? No way, that is very interesting, please tell me more.
Reader Paul Lowman of Kenosha, Wis., reports, "The new Superman flick 'Man of Steel' is included in this list of Most Disappointing Movies of 2012, though won't be released until 2013."
No, no, no. That's not what the article stated. Learn to read shithead, and quit lying about what articles are saying while hoping no one clicks on the link you provided. "Man of Steel" wasn't listed as a disappointing movie, but was listed as a flick that was pushed to 2013. Reading is FUN-damental.
Harbaugh could have gone for two confident that even if the Ravens
missed, Mike Shanahan would have been afraid to go for two at 27-26,
because then he would have been blamed for a Redskins lose.
Yes, he would have been blamed for a Redskins lose. What's a "lose" again? For a guy who brags about what a great novel writer he is in TMQ, Gregg's editorial skills seem lax here. If I were Gregg, I would say "often" he has grammatical errors in his columns.
The Football Gods Chortled No. 3: Buffalo and City of Tampa both
lost at home by surrendering last-second touchdowns. Bills and Bucs
defenders dropped what looked like easy interceptions on the down before
the opponents' win.
So why would the football gods "chortle?" Didn't the football gods make these players drop the easy interceptions, since Gregg seems to believe football gods control the outcome of games when a team doesn't go for it on fourth down? So why would they chortle (and seriously, who the fuck "chortles" anymore?) when their plan worked and the Bills/Buccaneers lost?
Why do I ask such stupid questions that really have no answer?
Next Week: Shahid Khan calls the Jaguars' 2-11 record "a bit of a sticky wicket."
I guess this is supposed to be funny because Khan is Pakistani. I should just be happy Gregg didn't use a slur against people of Jewish origin since he "often" shows his hatred for those of the Jewish faith.
Thursday, December 13, 2012
Wednesday, December 12, 2012
0 comments Terence Moore Does Scott Boras' Job for Him
Scott Boras is a very successful agent for MLB players. He's probably the most successful in the history of baseball, at least in terms of the amount of money he has been able to get for his players on the free agent market. Think of a big name player and the odds are reasonably good that Scott Boras is the agent for this player. He has what is known as the "Boras Binder" of statistics which makes any of his potential free agents sound like future Hall of Famers and he routinely gets at least one MLB team to bite on a (crazy) contract for his clients. So knowing all of this, you wouldn't expect Scott Boras to need help finding his players a job and a multi-year contract, but Terence Moore is willing to help him anyway. Michael Bourn is a free agent and Scott Boras is his agent. Terence Moore writes about Michael Bourn and how teams (specifically the Atlanta Braves) should sign him to a contract. It seems Terence can't understand why the Braves don't sign Bourn to a big, multi-year contract immediately. Terence only mentions Scott Boras once in this column, despite Boras' demands on a multi-year deal being the biggest impediment to the Braves or any team signing Bourn. Terence also doesn't seem to care for any type of projecting to see if Bourn would even be worth $15 million per year next year, much less four years down the road.
I'm not trying to do a hack job on Bourn, but Boras is going to want $100 million for him and speedy centerfielders without power have a habit of not getting better as they get further away from the age of 30.
I love center fielders, so I love Michael Bourn.
How about crappy center fielders? Do you like crappy center fielders simply because they are center fielders? Actually, don't answer that.
Those old black-and-white films of Mickey Mantle and Willie Mays doing their things are intoxicating.
I've got bad news. Michael Bourn isn't Mickey Mantle or Willie Mays.
Remember Paul Blair? He was hitting challenged, but his glove, legs and arm were among the primary reasons the Baltimore Orioles had those four 20-game winners in 1971.
A less mature person would take this opportunity to mention that wins are an overrated statistic, because as Terence Moore states here, how many wins a pitcher has partially depends on him having great center fielders like Paul Blair. I'm more mature than that though and won't mention my feelings on wins.
There also were those magic center fielders before Blair, ranging from Ty Cobb to Tris Speaker to Joe DiMaggio. Then there were those after Blair, ranging from Kirby Puckett to Ken Griffey Jr. to Torii Hunter. And there are those now that include rookie sensation Mike Trout, Adam Jones, Josh Hamilton and Bourn.
Three of those names don't belong in this discussion quite yet. I'll allow you to guess which three names those are.
So this is just me: If you have a center fielder of note these days, you should keep him no matter what.
If a team has a budget they need to stick to, then this strategy is probably the best way to spend valuable payroll space on a player who is overpaid. There are very few players who should be kept "no matter what" and the fact Michael Bourn is a center fielder doesn't automatically put him in this discussion. Even Albert Pujols was allowed by the Cardinals to depart in free agency last year. Blind loyalty to a player and an open checkbook to pay that player is an easy and fast way to put a non-winning team on the field. I think this is especially true when a player has hit free agency and a team is bidding against other MLB teams for that player's services.
So no, Michael Bourn should not be kept no matter what. His salary demands and how he projects during the length of his contract are very important matters to be considered.
Gold Glove-caliber defense? That's a given for the kind of center fielder I'm talking about. And if the guy can hit a little, while providing you with some zip on the basepaths and spark in the clubhouse -- well, you really need to make sure he doesn't leave anytime soon.
I have three separate issues with this statement:
1. Yes, Michael Bourn provides great defense and is fast on the base paths. Bourn also can hit a little. He hit just a little in the second half of the season...meaning he didn't hit very well in the second half of his contract year. Bourn hit .225/.325/.311 in the second half of the 2012 season. Bourn's splits are very even over his entire career between the first and second half of the season, so maybe the second half of the 2012 season was an outlier.
Terence also doesn't project Bourn's performance into the later years of his four or five year contract. This link from NBC Sports sums it up very well.
Bourn strikes out a lot for a leadoff hitter and whichever team that signs him will have to get their value out of him in the early part of his contract, because his proficiency for striking out and lack of power don't seem like they will project well into the future. Bourn will always be a fast guy (probably) on the base paths and play very good defense, but his value as a player depends on what kind of contract he signs this offseason. Speaking of which...
2. Terence Moore blindly saying a team should re-sign a center fielder without even discussing that player's salary demands is very poor writing, as well as a very elementary way to write a column. Salary demands have to be in the forefront of a writer's mind when deciding to write a team "must" keep a pending free agent who plays center field or any position on the baseball field.
3. Terence is advocating pretty hard for Michael Bourn in this column. Is Terence Moore working for MLB.com AND getting commissions from Scott Boras? If so, that seems to be some sort of a conflict of interest. Granted, it hasn't ever hurt Jon Heyman, but that's beside the point.
I'm talking about Bourn. That's why I cringe whenever I hear a few measly millions (OK, a bunch of millions) could prohibit the Atlanta Braves from re-signing the free agent for a second full season.
The Braves, or any other team, wouldn't be re-signing him for a second full season, but for four or five more full seasons. Therein lies the issue. Terence Moore wanted the Braves to sign a washed up Ken Griffey Jr a few seasons ago, so he clearly has no concept of salary versus the value of a player. The Braves have a fixed payroll, which Terence should know well from writing for the Atlanta Journal-Constitution for quite a few years. They have about $25 million to spend this offseason, depending on who you believe, so why would they spend $16-$20 million of this money on a center fielder when they need a left fielder/third baseman as well? More importantly, with the Uggla contract albatross on the books for three more years, why would the Braves saddle themselves with another player making $10 million or more who doesn't project to age well?
So why cringe when you learn a bunch of millions separate Bourn from the Braves? Smart teams don't blow their budget for nostalgia purposes. It makes sense to be smart on whether to offer Bourn the contract he and Scott Boras want.
As for Gold Gloves, Bourn has two of them, and he was close to snatching his third in four years this season.
I'm not going to argue his value on defense. I have seen him play quite enough to believe he is a valuable defensive center fielder and is fast on the base paths. Bourn did lead the majors for the second year in a row in being caught stealing. His steal percentage for 2012 was 76%.
He can hit, too. Despite his career batting average of .272, he was around .300 for more than a year as the definitive leadoff hitter, before he slumped in the second half of last season.
Bourn WAS around .300, before he went down to a .274 average for the season. I like how Terence acts as if Bourn's career average of .272 is some sort of outlier or doesn't reflect Bourn's true hitting ability because he hit .300 for a three month span this season. Bourn's batting average per year for his career are as follows:
2007: .277
2008: .229
2009: .285
2010: .265
2011: .294
2012: .274
These were his batting averages from age 24-29. I don't know if I can see him starting to become a .300 hitter on a consistent basis after the age of 30. So there is no "despite" his career batting average, because .274 is his career average and is a number he has always hovered around.
If that isn't enough, Bourn is a clubhouse favorite, and going back to the start of Bobby Cox's second reign with the Braves in 1991, chemistry has been as important to this franchise as pitching.
You don't pay $15 million per year for chemistry. You pay $15 million per year for Chipper Jones or a great player who isn't an asshole in the locker room. Teams pay for chemistry plus performance.
He also keeps mentioning he prefers to stay with the Braves, and Braves officials keep saying the feeling was mutual.
Terence Moore is a real gem. He tells us that Michael Bourn "prefers" to stay with the Braves. Of course he doesn't "prefer" this enough to sign a long term contract and forgo free agency does he? Bourn isn't dumb enough to rule out any teams he could play for as he becomes a free agent. So actions speak louder than words. If Bourn really preferred to stay in Atlanta, he would get a deal done. Instead, Bourn has Scott Boras as his agent and hasn't made this fictional "preference" known through his actions.
Sounds like a perfect match.
It's perfect unless you consider Bourn's financial demands and the Braves budget, as well as whether Bourn's demands match up with his skill set now and in the future. If you blindly don't consider any variables other than where Bourn claims to prefer to play, it is a perfect fit.
Bourn told me over the phone on Tuesday. "That [loss to the Cardinals in the NL Wild Card game] was tough, because I thought we had a good team. No, a great team, with all of the aspects of the game that you need. But there are a few teams out there that are likeable, and I can't put my finger on just one. So I can't narrow it down right now to just one."
You can obviously see Bourn "prefers" the Braves if the statement "there are a few teams there that are likeable, and I can't put my finger on just one" means anything. Clearly, he doesn't necessarily want to be back in Atlanta. It's a perfect match as long as you ignore all of the variables that could potentially make it not a perfect match, like salary demands, budget constraints and Bourn's future production based on his salary.
Either way, the fact Bourn can't narrow down which team he wants to play for next year means he definitely "prefers" Atlanta.
The Braves offered Bourn a qualifying offer of $13.3 million last week, but Bourn rejected it.
He rejected the offer of $13.3 million. Again, that should tell Terence Moore something, but it doesn't.
After all, given his still-potent skills at age 29, he is expected to do much better than that in the pocketbook.
Exactly, and Bourn very well may not be worth more than $13.3 million in a season.
It also doesn't hurt his financial prospects that his agent is Scott Boras, noted for squeezing more than a few pennies out of owners.
This is the first and only mention of Scott Boras in this column. That's not a sign of a well-written column given the subject matter discussed by Terence Moore. Scott Boras needs to be a major part of any discussion when it comes to signing Michael Bourn as a free agent.
Whatever Bourn gets, he deserves.
Not necessarily. It's good to see Terence Moore is looking at this situation from a purely neutral point of view though. He thinks a MLB team should give Michael Bourn whatever he asks for because Bourn is a fast center fielder. Whatever other criteria could be required for a $100 million contract?
I mean, given what he provides for a team, you can't overpay for his services,
No, you actually can overpay for a 30 year old center fielder who strikes out a lot, has little power, and doesn't project well into the future. Bourn's main strengths, his speed and defense are really good, but he isn't getting younger and I doubt his hitting will trend upwards as he gets older. It's entirely possible to overpay for him. Just stay tuned to find out if I am right.
and that applies to just about any other superlative center fielder -- past, present or future.
No, it doesn't. Why can't you overpay for the services of a great center fielder, but you can overpay for the services of a great third baseman or right fielder? Why am I arguing logic when Terence Moore clearly isn't using logic?
Bourn laughed.
He agreed, of course.
You mean a pending free agent doesn't disagree you can't overpay for his services? This is breaking news. The next thing Terence will tell us is that Michael Bourn's agent thinks he is worth as much money as a baseball team is willing to pay him.
"I think it's 1A and 1B between those two positions. The shortstop is going to get more action than the center fielder, but I'll tell you what -- you save a whole lot of runs in center field. And because of all the running you do, you have to be in great shape.
Which is why it is important to not overpay for a center fielder. Otherwise a team would have an expensive, underachieving center fielder in one of the most important positions on defense. Checkmate! Your turn now, Bourn!
"You look at what Mike Trout did this year for [the Los Angeles Angels] as a center fielder and as a leadoff hitter. It was tremendous. He has more power than I do, but we do some of the same things."
If by "do the same things," Michael Bourn means, "We both are center fielders, are fast, and play the game of baseball," then yes, he is correct. If Michael Bourn means anything else by this statement then he is incredibly wrong. Mike Trout is a completely different offensive player from Michael Bourn. Granted, they both steal bases and hold a bat in their hands when trying to hit the baseball, but the comparison ends there. Trout stole more bases, hit more home runs, drove in more runs, got on-base more often, hit for a higher average, and nearly doubled Bourn's OPS+. I know OPS+ isn't the end-all of statistics, but Bourn's was 90 and Trout's was 171. They aren't close to being the same player right now.
No question there.
No, no, no, big question there. When has a baseball player's self-evaluation ever been off? Never. Baseball players are always able to have a reasonable evaluation of their own skill set.
It's just that Bourn has been doing them longer than Trout --
So Mike Trouth is a decade younger and still plays at the level of a six year veteran...and this makes Michael Bourn's value increase how? Michael Bourn is maybe, maybe, like Mike Trout in two phases of the game. Bourn steals bases (though not as frequently or as successfully) as Trout and they both play great defense. Bourn is older, strikes out nearly as often and has less power. Those are the three major concerns a team should have when signing Bourn to a $90-$100 million contract. Of course, Terence Moore thinks Bourn is worth $200 million over five years.
and Bourn hopes to keep doing those things as long as he can without jumping from team to team.
Well, signing a long term deal no other MLB team will want to take on through a trade is certainly a way to make sure Bourn doesn't jump from team-to-team. Again, Bourn could possibly stay in Atlanta if he wanted $10 million per year. Of course the fact Bourn's actions don't match up with his words are irrelevant to Terence Moore apparently.
Bourn said. "As a player, you would like to get comfortable in one spot, but I'm not sure where that spot is for me right now."
I am guessing that spot will end up being whichever team ends up offering Bourn the most money. Such a coincidence that is.
Wherever it is for Bourn, the pitchers on his team will be happy -- along with the rest of his teammates, the team's fans and everybody else.
Scott Boras gives this article a stamp of approval. You can never overpay for a player like Michael Bourn. Let's fast forward to 2015 and see if that axiom is still true.
I'm not trying to do a hack job on Bourn, but Boras is going to want $100 million for him and speedy centerfielders without power have a habit of not getting better as they get further away from the age of 30.
I love center fielders, so I love Michael Bourn.
How about crappy center fielders? Do you like crappy center fielders simply because they are center fielders? Actually, don't answer that.
Those old black-and-white films of Mickey Mantle and Willie Mays doing their things are intoxicating.
I've got bad news. Michael Bourn isn't Mickey Mantle or Willie Mays.
Remember Paul Blair? He was hitting challenged, but his glove, legs and arm were among the primary reasons the Baltimore Orioles had those four 20-game winners in 1971.
A less mature person would take this opportunity to mention that wins are an overrated statistic, because as Terence Moore states here, how many wins a pitcher has partially depends on him having great center fielders like Paul Blair. I'm more mature than that though and won't mention my feelings on wins.
There also were those magic center fielders before Blair, ranging from Ty Cobb to Tris Speaker to Joe DiMaggio. Then there were those after Blair, ranging from Kirby Puckett to Ken Griffey Jr. to Torii Hunter. And there are those now that include rookie sensation Mike Trout, Adam Jones, Josh Hamilton and Bourn.
Three of those names don't belong in this discussion quite yet. I'll allow you to guess which three names those are.
So this is just me: If you have a center fielder of note these days, you should keep him no matter what.
If a team has a budget they need to stick to, then this strategy is probably the best way to spend valuable payroll space on a player who is overpaid. There are very few players who should be kept "no matter what" and the fact Michael Bourn is a center fielder doesn't automatically put him in this discussion. Even Albert Pujols was allowed by the Cardinals to depart in free agency last year. Blind loyalty to a player and an open checkbook to pay that player is an easy and fast way to put a non-winning team on the field. I think this is especially true when a player has hit free agency and a team is bidding against other MLB teams for that player's services.
So no, Michael Bourn should not be kept no matter what. His salary demands and how he projects during the length of his contract are very important matters to be considered.
Gold Glove-caliber defense? That's a given for the kind of center fielder I'm talking about. And if the guy can hit a little, while providing you with some zip on the basepaths and spark in the clubhouse -- well, you really need to make sure he doesn't leave anytime soon.
I have three separate issues with this statement:
1. Yes, Michael Bourn provides great defense and is fast on the base paths. Bourn also can hit a little. He hit just a little in the second half of the season...meaning he didn't hit very well in the second half of his contract year. Bourn hit .225/.325/.311 in the second half of the 2012 season. Bourn's splits are very even over his entire career between the first and second half of the season, so maybe the second half of the 2012 season was an outlier.
Terence also doesn't project Bourn's performance into the later years of his four or five year contract. This link from NBC Sports sums it up very well.
Bourn strikes out a lot for a leadoff hitter and whichever team that signs him will have to get their value out of him in the early part of his contract, because his proficiency for striking out and lack of power don't seem like they will project well into the future. Bourn will always be a fast guy (probably) on the base paths and play very good defense, but his value as a player depends on what kind of contract he signs this offseason. Speaking of which...
2. Terence Moore blindly saying a team should re-sign a center fielder without even discussing that player's salary demands is very poor writing, as well as a very elementary way to write a column. Salary demands have to be in the forefront of a writer's mind when deciding to write a team "must" keep a pending free agent who plays center field or any position on the baseball field.
3. Terence is advocating pretty hard for Michael Bourn in this column. Is Terence Moore working for MLB.com AND getting commissions from Scott Boras? If so, that seems to be some sort of a conflict of interest. Granted, it hasn't ever hurt Jon Heyman, but that's beside the point.
I'm talking about Bourn. That's why I cringe whenever I hear a few measly millions (OK, a bunch of millions) could prohibit the Atlanta Braves from re-signing the free agent for a second full season.
The Braves, or any other team, wouldn't be re-signing him for a second full season, but for four or five more full seasons. Therein lies the issue. Terence Moore wanted the Braves to sign a washed up Ken Griffey Jr a few seasons ago, so he clearly has no concept of salary versus the value of a player. The Braves have a fixed payroll, which Terence should know well from writing for the Atlanta Journal-Constitution for quite a few years. They have about $25 million to spend this offseason, depending on who you believe, so why would they spend $16-$20 million of this money on a center fielder when they need a left fielder/third baseman as well? More importantly, with the Uggla contract albatross on the books for three more years, why would the Braves saddle themselves with another player making $10 million or more who doesn't project to age well?
So why cringe when you learn a bunch of millions separate Bourn from the Braves? Smart teams don't blow their budget for nostalgia purposes. It makes sense to be smart on whether to offer Bourn the contract he and Scott Boras want.
As for Gold Gloves, Bourn has two of them, and he was close to snatching his third in four years this season.
I'm not going to argue his value on defense. I have seen him play quite enough to believe he is a valuable defensive center fielder and is fast on the base paths. Bourn did lead the majors for the second year in a row in being caught stealing. His steal percentage for 2012 was 76%.
He can hit, too. Despite his career batting average of .272, he was around .300 for more than a year as the definitive leadoff hitter, before he slumped in the second half of last season.
Bourn WAS around .300, before he went down to a .274 average for the season. I like how Terence acts as if Bourn's career average of .272 is some sort of outlier or doesn't reflect Bourn's true hitting ability because he hit .300 for a three month span this season. Bourn's batting average per year for his career are as follows:
2007: .277
2008: .229
2009: .285
2010: .265
2011: .294
2012: .274
These were his batting averages from age 24-29. I don't know if I can see him starting to become a .300 hitter on a consistent basis after the age of 30. So there is no "despite" his career batting average, because .274 is his career average and is a number he has always hovered around.
If that isn't enough, Bourn is a clubhouse favorite, and going back to the start of Bobby Cox's second reign with the Braves in 1991, chemistry has been as important to this franchise as pitching.
You don't pay $15 million per year for chemistry. You pay $15 million per year for Chipper Jones or a great player who isn't an asshole in the locker room. Teams pay for chemistry plus performance.
He also keeps mentioning he prefers to stay with the Braves, and Braves officials keep saying the feeling was mutual.
Terence Moore is a real gem. He tells us that Michael Bourn "prefers" to stay with the Braves. Of course he doesn't "prefer" this enough to sign a long term contract and forgo free agency does he? Bourn isn't dumb enough to rule out any teams he could play for as he becomes a free agent. So actions speak louder than words. If Bourn really preferred to stay in Atlanta, he would get a deal done. Instead, Bourn has Scott Boras as his agent and hasn't made this fictional "preference" known through his actions.
Sounds like a perfect match.
It's perfect unless you consider Bourn's financial demands and the Braves budget, as well as whether Bourn's demands match up with his skill set now and in the future. If you blindly don't consider any variables other than where Bourn claims to prefer to play, it is a perfect fit.
Bourn told me over the phone on Tuesday. "That [loss to the Cardinals in the NL Wild Card game] was tough, because I thought we had a good team. No, a great team, with all of the aspects of the game that you need. But there are a few teams out there that are likeable, and I can't put my finger on just one. So I can't narrow it down right now to just one."
You can obviously see Bourn "prefers" the Braves if the statement "there are a few teams there that are likeable, and I can't put my finger on just one" means anything. Clearly, he doesn't necessarily want to be back in Atlanta. It's a perfect match as long as you ignore all of the variables that could potentially make it not a perfect match, like salary demands, budget constraints and Bourn's future production based on his salary.
Either way, the fact Bourn can't narrow down which team he wants to play for next year means he definitely "prefers" Atlanta.
The Braves offered Bourn a qualifying offer of $13.3 million last week, but Bourn rejected it.
He rejected the offer of $13.3 million. Again, that should tell Terence Moore something, but it doesn't.
After all, given his still-potent skills at age 29, he is expected to do much better than that in the pocketbook.
Exactly, and Bourn very well may not be worth more than $13.3 million in a season.
It also doesn't hurt his financial prospects that his agent is Scott Boras, noted for squeezing more than a few pennies out of owners.
This is the first and only mention of Scott Boras in this column. That's not a sign of a well-written column given the subject matter discussed by Terence Moore. Scott Boras needs to be a major part of any discussion when it comes to signing Michael Bourn as a free agent.
Whatever Bourn gets, he deserves.
Not necessarily. It's good to see Terence Moore is looking at this situation from a purely neutral point of view though. He thinks a MLB team should give Michael Bourn whatever he asks for because Bourn is a fast center fielder. Whatever other criteria could be required for a $100 million contract?
I mean, given what he provides for a team, you can't overpay for his services,
No, you actually can overpay for a 30 year old center fielder who strikes out a lot, has little power, and doesn't project well into the future. Bourn's main strengths, his speed and defense are really good, but he isn't getting younger and I doubt his hitting will trend upwards as he gets older. It's entirely possible to overpay for him. Just stay tuned to find out if I am right.
and that applies to just about any other superlative center fielder -- past, present or future.
No, it doesn't. Why can't you overpay for the services of a great center fielder, but you can overpay for the services of a great third baseman or right fielder? Why am I arguing logic when Terence Moore clearly isn't using logic?
Bourn laughed.
He agreed, of course.
You mean a pending free agent doesn't disagree you can't overpay for his services? This is breaking news. The next thing Terence will tell us is that Michael Bourn's agent thinks he is worth as much money as a baseball team is willing to pay him.
"I think it's 1A and 1B between those two positions. The shortstop is going to get more action than the center fielder, but I'll tell you what -- you save a whole lot of runs in center field. And because of all the running you do, you have to be in great shape.
Which is why it is important to not overpay for a center fielder. Otherwise a team would have an expensive, underachieving center fielder in one of the most important positions on defense. Checkmate! Your turn now, Bourn!
"You look at what Mike Trout did this year for [the Los Angeles Angels] as a center fielder and as a leadoff hitter. It was tremendous. He has more power than I do, but we do some of the same things."
If by "do the same things," Michael Bourn means, "We both are center fielders, are fast, and play the game of baseball," then yes, he is correct. If Michael Bourn means anything else by this statement then he is incredibly wrong. Mike Trout is a completely different offensive player from Michael Bourn. Granted, they both steal bases and hold a bat in their hands when trying to hit the baseball, but the comparison ends there. Trout stole more bases, hit more home runs, drove in more runs, got on-base more often, hit for a higher average, and nearly doubled Bourn's OPS+. I know OPS+ isn't the end-all of statistics, but Bourn's was 90 and Trout's was 171. They aren't close to being the same player right now.
No question there.
No, no, no, big question there. When has a baseball player's self-evaluation ever been off? Never. Baseball players are always able to have a reasonable evaluation of their own skill set.
It's just that Bourn has been doing them longer than Trout --
So Mike Trouth is a decade younger and still plays at the level of a six year veteran...and this makes Michael Bourn's value increase how? Michael Bourn is maybe, maybe, like Mike Trout in two phases of the game. Bourn steals bases (though not as frequently or as successfully) as Trout and they both play great defense. Bourn is older, strikes out nearly as often and has less power. Those are the three major concerns a team should have when signing Bourn to a $90-$100 million contract. Of course, Terence Moore thinks Bourn is worth $200 million over five years.
and Bourn hopes to keep doing those things as long as he can without jumping from team to team.
Well, signing a long term deal no other MLB team will want to take on through a trade is certainly a way to make sure Bourn doesn't jump from team-to-team. Again, Bourn could possibly stay in Atlanta if he wanted $10 million per year. Of course the fact Bourn's actions don't match up with his words are irrelevant to Terence Moore apparently.
Bourn said. "As a player, you would like to get comfortable in one spot, but I'm not sure where that spot is for me right now."
I am guessing that spot will end up being whichever team ends up offering Bourn the most money. Such a coincidence that is.
Wherever it is for Bourn, the pitchers on his team will be happy -- along with the rest of his teammates, the team's fans and everybody else.
Scott Boras gives this article a stamp of approval. You can never overpay for a player like Michael Bourn. Let's fast forward to 2015 and see if that axiom is still true.
Tuesday, December 11, 2012
7 comments MMQB Review: Robots and Athletes Edition
Peter King helped us all understand what kind of football player Jovan Belcher was in last week's MMQB. Peter talked with Belcher's agent who wanted us to know that Belcher didn't go to Arrowhead Stadium to make a scene or anything like that. It's like no one can kill themselves in a public place in peace anymore. Peter also told us about the one recollection of Jovan Belcher as an NFL player that he had and I think that's about all...wait no, he also eulogized Kasandra Perkins in haiku form. Her family is eternally grateful she merited a haiku while Jovan Belcher's actions were better explained by his agent and we got to hear what a hard-working player Belcher was. This week Peter tells us the postseason awards are very much up in the air, so this is a good time for Peter to pick his winners in each category, and he also introduces us to the "forgotten" rookie quarterback, Kirk Cousins. Maybe Cousins is forgotten because he doesn't start for his team and has the Offensive Rookie of the Year starting in front him of him. I don't know, that's just a guess.
Adrian Peterson is not chasing 2,000 yards. He is chasing 2,105. The record.
The English language begins weeping violently. Or as Peter King would say,
"The English language is not happy. It is very sad. Feelings hurt."
Kirk Cousins is going to write for The New Yorker someday, and maybe not about football.
Not unless "Time" or "Newsweek" scoop him up first based entirely on a series of quotes he gave to Peter King in December 2012. Really that's all you need to do in order to become a well-respected writer is to give Peter a series of really, really deep quotes.
All of the stories of the day in due time, but this point first: Three weeks from today, the 50 voters for the annual Associated Press NFL awards have to file their ballots. Three weeks out every year, most of the races are either clear or have two or three men in the running. This year, as I see it, there's not a single easy race.
Except for "Super-Precocious Defensive Player of the Year," that award is already wrapped up. Step on up and take off your shirt for Pet---I mean, come and accept your award J.J. Watt!
For MVP, I could make a solid case for any of the three quarterbacks with at least 20 more touchdowns than interceptions
So apparently this is sole criteria for winning the MVP award? The MVP should go to whichever quarterback has 20 more touchdowns than interceptions.
And what about the rookie quarterbacks, with their insane frosh seasons; Robert Griffin III leads the league in passer rating. There's not a bad choice.
Robert Griffin for MVP? It's probably not a really great choice either. Give him the Offensive Rookie of the Year award and he'll get the MVP another season. You know what? Fuck it, just give the MVP to Andrew Luck. Why not?
I'll take the quarterback with the longest winning streak (eight games) and who's had the biggest adjustment to make of all the very good ones this year, schematically and physically, on a new team in a new city. For now, give me Peyton Manning.
No, literally, Peter wants us to give him Peyton Manning, which obviously can't be done. What have we told you about owning football players Peter? You can't own Peyton Manning and make him as your friend so you can sit on the front porch swing together drinking sweet tea. Have you learned nothing from kidnapping Brett Favre in 2003?
For now, give me Peterson, with an asterisk, because he has to keep up his breakneck pace when the three remaining defenses he'll face all know he'll be getting the ball early and often.
So for MVP Peter King is taking both Adrian Peterson and Peyton Manning, who have apparently formed some sort of running back-quarterback hybrid in Peter's mind named Peyton Peterson. I can't say I am surprised. Peter desires to be liked by NFL players and can't seem to pick just one Offensive or Defensive Player of the Week in MMQB, so I wouldn't expect him to be able to pick just one MVP for the NFL over an entire year.
For Defensive Player of the Year, it's likely to be a race between Watt, Miller and Smith, with Seattle cornerback Richard Sherman an outside threat. To me, it's a choice between one of the best pass rushers to come into the league in years, Smith, versus two men who are more all-around run-pass defenders, Watt and Miller. A factor that must be considered, obviously, is Smith threatening the NFL sack record. He has 19.5 after getting two Sunday against Miami.
I am sorry, who is this "Aldon Smith" guy again? Is he white? Does he knock down passes like King Kong knocks down planes? How fucking precocious is he? Peter hasn't ever heard of this "Aldon Smith" guy, but he'll use the Google to find out who he is.
Today I'll take Watt, with his 16.5 sacks and league-record 15 passes batted down, four of which resulted in Houston interceptions. Three weeks from today, who knows?
Me. I know J.J. Watt will be the answer three weeks from today, eight weeks from today or eight years from today, because he has batted down passes that (through some luck) resulted in interceptions.
For Offensive Rookie, three quarterbacks of teams that didn't make the playoffs last year are in playoff contention this season...Today I'd take Griffin, with his rookie-QB record 748 rushing yards and league-leading 104.2 rating. But if he misses time with his knee injury, Wilson or Luck could sneak in.
Because Robert Griffin's candidacy should be affected because he suffered a knee injury running for some of his 748 rushing yards on the season. Andrew Luck or Russell Wilson are better rookies because Robert Griffin was the best rookie, but he got injured.
I'm confused as to how Peter wouldn't be willing to give Offensive Rookie of the Year to Robert Griffin if he didn't play in Weeks 15-17 due to injury, but he is willing to allow Chuck Pagano to share the Coach of the Year award when he hasn't been the head coach of the Colts for 80% of the season due to illness. I guess Peter picks and chooses when his awards are going to be time-based. That's not inconsistent at all.
For Defensive Rookie, three linebackers stepped in from day one and became tackling machines -- Carolina's Luke Kuechly, Seattle's Bobby Wagner and Tampa Bay's Lavonte David.
Tackles are somewhat overrated, but I will allow it for the time being. I've seen quite a few linebackers who have a lot of tackles simply because they are the guy who tackles the ball carrier after he has gained 5-6 yards. I'm thinking of Micheal Barrow specifically.
For now, for the wins and the leadership and filling a gaping hole, I'll take Wagner of the Seahawks.
Well, it makes sense. You obviously want to give an individual rookie award to the player who is on the team with the most wins. It's not like the Buccaneers had a gaping hole in the spot where Derrick Brooks played or the Panthers had a gaping hole at middle linebacker this year when Jon Beason went down. Bad point, Peter, very bad point. I like your conclusion, but the way you got there is suspect.
For Coach of the Year, line 'em up...My choice, today? I'll split my vote between the two men coaching the Indianapolis Colts: leukemia-stricken Chuck Pagano (by text and telephone) and interim Bruce Arians (by daily hard coaching).
No, no, no. Sentiment aside, just give it to Bruce Arians. Give Chuck Pagano "Inspiration of the Year" or something, but Bruce Arians is the head coach of the Colts and should win this award.
For Comeback Player, we could argue all day about Peterson coming back to a very high level after surgery and Peyton Manning, for returning to Peyton Manning form after something no quarterback's ever done -- playing the position coming off four neck procedures in two years. And don't forget the stirring comeback of Carolina linebacker Thomas Davis, who'd win it in a walk in almost any other year.
I don't think this award can go to Adrian Peterson. He played in 12 games last year. That's 75% of the season. To win the Comeback Player of the Year award I would think a player should miss a large portion of the previous season. "Comeback" in the award name seems to indicate the player didn't play much last year and came back to the NFL to play at a high level. Maybe I'm reading too much into it. Peterson's recovery is amazing, but I think it has to come down to Peyton Manning and Thomas Davis since they missed large portions of last season (well, Davis missed large portions of the previous three seasons). Davis played in 1.5 games and Manning missed the entire season in 2011.
RGIII must be Elastic Man. Robert Griffin III's right knee whipped after being hit by a Ravens' defender in the fourth quarter at FedEx Field, and it hyperextended grotesquely. Remarkably, his MRI showed a knee sprain, which is a partial ligament tear, but not major damage. The Redskins know he can't expose himself to as many hits as he does at 218 pounds, but now's not the time for a lecture.
Now would be the time for a lecture because this injury is a warning as to what can happen when Griffin exposes himself and his body to hard hits on the football field. These hits can't be completely stopped, but this injury is a reminder of what can happen if Griffin doesn't slide or doesn't get a chance to slide.
The Colts take command of the AFC Wild-Card race. Pittsburgh lost, embarrassingly, to San Diego. Cincinnati got out-emotioned by the Cowboys.
I'm not even sure what "out-emotioned" means. I think Peter made this up.
David Wilson of the Giants ran back kicks for a total of 227 yards Sunday, including an electric 97-yard touchdown return, the longest for the franchise since the LBJ Administration. Tampa coach Greg Schiano's idea -- proposed to Roger Goodell when Schiano was still the Rutgers coach -- to eliminate the kickoff in favor of allowing a team to opt to go for it on 4th-and-15 from its 30-yard line ("So arbitrary it sounds like it was pulled out of a hat,'' one coach said Friday) seemed like a longshot before Sunday. But after the return electricity in the Meadowlands it seems ever more unlikely.
So David Wilson saved the kickoff by returning a kickoff for a touchdown? I don't get this. Is David Wilson the first player to ever return a kickoff for a touchdown? Why would half a century of kickoffs be forgotten by Roger Goodell until David Wilson showed up and ran a kickoff back for a touchdown? Roger Goodell knows the kickoff can result in exciting plays, but he also knows players can get injured on the kickoff, which is why he thought about eliminating the kickoff in the first place.
I think Goodell's point was, excitement or not, if there's evidence that concussion and other neck and knee injuries can be reduced significantly by the elimination of the kickoff, it's only a matter of time before something takes its place -- for the long-term health of the game and its players.
But has Goodell seen David Wilson's kickoff return? He wouldn't give a shit about the long-term health of the game and its players if he had seen it.
The Vikings are in a clump of teams at 7-6, and they may have to win out to make the playoffs. That's fine with Peterson, because winning means playing well, and playing well means he won't have to do it all himself.
Oh no, with Christian Ponder as the Vikings quarterback and Percy Harvin injured, then Adrian Peterson is going to have to do it all himself.
The forgotten rookie quarterback.
On draft weekend, Michigan State's Kirk Cousins thought there were a lot of teams that might pick him. Washington wasn't one of them, not after taking Robert Griffin III in the first round. But the Redskins took him at pick 102. "I was scratching my head too,'' Cousins said Sunday evening, "I think like a lot of people were."
I was shopping at Whole Foods. I think we all know where we were when Kirk Cousins got drafted. I remember having a lengthy discussion with a guy in the produce section about when Kirk Cousins was going to get drafted. I remember the conversation because the guy had no idea who Kirk Cousins was and I just made that entire story up.
Timeout. Third-and-5. Offensive coordinator Kyle Shanahan called a play with Cousins, in the pocket, instructed to take his time, survey his options, and pick the most open one.
"I didn't like the look I got right away,'' Cousins said. "Something inside me said to take off and try to make a play. That's what you do sometimes as a quarterback. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.''
But how many sometimes come when you're cold off the bench, with your team's playoff life at stake?
Three times, Peter. The answer is three times.
"It happened so fast,'' Cousins said. "I definitely didn't want to take a sack. We weren't playing The Little Sisters of the Poor out there. I was out of the pocket, and I just channeled my inner RGIII, and Pierre got open in the corner of the end zone.''
"Little Sisters of the Poor out there." I'm shocked, dismayed, awed, somewhat flabbergasted that Kirk Cousins isn't writing for "The New Yorker" right now or at least consulting on the State of the Union address right now.
Kirk Cousins: Athlete, poet, writer, wordsmith, sometimes robot.
"One of the things I've learned about being a quarterback,'' said Cousins, and for a minute, he sounded like a Penn professor of Football 101 with a tweed coat on,
That sentence is an incredibly basic sentence that anyone with an IQ over 100 could state. I don't see how Cousins sounds like a Penn professor, but I think Peter King has got himself a little crush. The NFL is just so full of precocious 20-something athletic men. It's such a joy for Peter to be around!
"is that it's a balance between being a robot and being an artist.
Actually, this sounds like a freshman Penn student talking at a party while high trying to impress a girl by sounding smart. Maybe that's what Peter meant.
On the touchdown to Garcon, that's being an artist; you don't really know how it's going to look, but you've just got to get out of the pocket and create something.
I got it. Artists don't know what they are creating or how it will look, you just have to do it. I'm not an artist, but I've always been under the impression an artist usually envisions and has an idea of what he/she is creating.
On the two-point conversion, you're a robot. You take the play and do what's called, because you know if it's blocked the right way and set up the right way, it'll work -- the quarterback just executes it."
That is unless the play isn't blocked the right way, in which case Kirk Cousins would then become an artist and get out of the pocket and create something.
Peter King is one easily impressed person if he thinks Kirk Cousins quote sounds like a Penn professor teaching Football 101 and not the ramblings of a quarterback who is coming off the biggest moment of his NFL career.
It all seems so empty, of course, because a service and a ball cannot bring her boy back from this awful death, from an irresponsible accident by his best friend, but what do you do after a senseless and awful death? You do the best you can.
"There's no road map for this,'' Garrett said quietly, 90 minutes after the game. "No script.''
Well it sounds like rather than be a robot, Jason Garrett needs to be an artist.
"The first week he's here, he's playing every snap in practice like it's a game. That first week, he wins our scout team player of the week. He's rushing the passer, giving all our tackles -- Tyron Smith, Doug Free, Jermey Parnell -- everything they can handle. I take notes at practice, and I can't tell you how often I wrote down, 'Jerry Brown' with an exclamation point.
Garrett was actually very angry with the California governor and wanted to remind himself of this, but the point remains. "Jerry Brown" was written on a piece of paper with an exclamation point.
Fine Fifteen
3. Denver (10-3). As the indefatigable Mike Reiss points out, Manning-Brady XIV is assured for 2013 now that Denver and New England have both clinched their divisions.
Thank God. We can all rest knowing there will be another hyped-up Manning-Brady game next year. Otherwise, if there wasn't a guarantee these two quarterbacks might meet I don't know how I could go on.
4. San Francisco (9-3-1). Remember when it was panicsville about Colin Kaepernick? You know, like, five days ago? The option run around left end cured that, at least for the time being.
No, I don't remember when it was panicsville about Colin Kaepernick. I do remember when Peter is panicsville in MMQB on a variety of topics from week-to-week, but I am sure since Peter is the mouthpiece for all NFL fans I was in a panic on the inside about Kaepernick.
5. Atlanta (11-2). Almost every good team in history has had a nightmare day, and this was Atlanta's. The key for Mike Smith now is to make sure it doesn't mushroom. You know how to do that?
Don't let your opponent get out to a 23-0 lead and hold the ball for most of the first half?
11. Indianapolis (9-4). I keep watching the Colts and saying Andrew Luck makes too many mistakes and there are holes in the secondary and they have a flawed offensive line and whatever else. But then Cassius Vaughn and Jerrell Freeman and Vick Ballard make plays, and it forces me to just say, "Shut up, logic."
The key, and stop me if I sound too much like a Penn professor, is that the Colts are playing like artists, but they also know when to play like robots.
Offensive Player of the Week
Cam Newton, QB, Carolina. The 30-20 win over NFC South first-place Atlanta showcased the 2011 Cam: 23 of 35 for 287 yards and two touchdowns, plus nine carries for 116 yards, including a 72-yard touchdown run. "I think this game allows me to have a little chip on my shoulder,'' said Newton. That's what he had most of last year.
I'm not fooled, Peter still hates him. Isn't it funny how having a chip on your shoulder as a quarterback plays a lot better with the media when you are winning football games?
Special Teams Player of the Week
David Wilson, RB/KR, New York Giants. For going 97 yards untouched on a kickoff return (longest GMen TD return on a kickoff since 1964) to forge a 7-7 tie in the first quarter of a game the Giants had to have.
Plus Wilson saved the NFL from changing the kickoff rules to a rule change that Greg Schiano suggested. If Roger Goodell is Scrooge then David Wilson was the Ghost of Christmas Present reminding Goodell how great kickoffs are.
"Maybe his wife can teach him how to throw."
-- FOX NFL analyst Jimmy Johnson, on Minnesota quarterback Christian Ponder, who was recently engaged to ESPN college sideline reporter Samantha Steele. Johnson also said Ponder is the worst quarterback in the NFL.
Remember back when the Vikings beat the 49ers and there was discussion about how much Christian Ponder was improving even though it was still early in the year? Whatever happened to those good old days?
The last time Detroit won at Lambeau Field was this week 21 years ago, Dec. 15, 1991.
That day, Brett Favre was a 248-pound third-string rookie quarterback in Atlanta, behind Chris Miller and Billy Joe Tolliver. While Favre sat on the bench, as he always did that season, Deion Sanders had two interceptions and Mike Rozier was the leading rusher for Atlanta.
Peter King wonders why people accuse him of having an infatuation with Brett Favre, but he brings it on himself. The fact the Lions had not won at Lambeau Field since 1991 isn't impressive enough, oh no, Peter has to use Brett Favre's career as a measure of exactly how long ago this was in case no one knows it is the year 2012. He measures time according to where Favre was in his career at that time. The accusations of an infatuation with Favre are correct to be made.
Mr. Starwood Preferred Member Travel Note of the Week
I was the Passenger You Don't Want to Be Near in the Quiet Car, on an Amtrak regional train, Providence to New York, Saturday afternoon. The idiot passenger. I put my phone on vibrate, and 10 minutes into the trip, it vibrated, and I answered it, bent over and whispering, not sure who it'd be. Of course the conductor came by. "Library-type atmophere, sir,'' he said. "Off the phone.'' I got off. Twenty minutes later, there was another call. Not urgent, but I picked it up anyway. Same deal. Conductor walked over. "Last time I'll tell you this,'' he said. "Off the phone or move."
He was right. I was wrong. The car was half-empty, but that doesn't matter. I was what I shake my head at on the Quiet Car often -- the idiot who whispers on the phone when you're not supposed to be on the phone. Felt like a bum. The rules of the train are not complex. If you can't follow 'em, walk.
If only there was a national writer who could eviscerate Peter for talking on his cell phone when he is specifically not supposed to do this. Unfortunately the sportswriter who usually eviscerates such dangerous people is the one doing the talking on the cell phone when he isn't supposed to. Peter says "If you can't follow 'em, walk" in reference to the rules but I have a feeling he would pick the phone up yet again in this situation. Of course it seems Peter has never thought the rules pertained to him. He tells his readers he is tired of all the Favre talk and then talks about Favre, he stares down other people for being annoying on the Acela but tells us all about phone conversations he had on the train, and now he goes in the Quiet Car knowing he shouldn't pick up his cell phone and then does so twice.
"Definition of team quitting? 9 losses n a row. 9th loss 58-0! Injuries handling of offense worst n NFL. Adrian Wilson&Darnell Dockett situations!''
-- @FitzBeatSr, Larry Fitzgerald Sr., father of the Arizona wide receiver, after the ridiculous loss by the Cardinals in Seattle. The son has been quite quiet through it all, but knowing the Cards receiver as I do, this is killing him -- and he's not going to sit idly by without trying to get out if he doesn't think the team can solve the endless quarterback problem.
I have difficulty feeling bad for Larry Fitzgerald. He's the one who asked that the Cardinals draft Michael Floyd because he wanted some pressure off of him. Who is to say what the Cardinals would have done with the draft pick if Fitzgerald had not stated he wanted Floyd, but this is reason #102 you don't let players help out or try to please players with personnel moves.
1. I think this is what I liked about Week 14:
a. Well, Greg Hardy, I guess you were right.
Hardy said the Panthers were a better team than the Falcons, which is probably a lie.
If you ever want to see the defensive end of a 4-9 team talk shit after a win look no further.
That's Hardy talking shit and saying "Get the fuck off our field" in reference to Matt Ryan screaming that at the Panthers bench after the first game this year in Atlanta. Such drama.
c. The tackling machine known as Luke Kuechly. Sixteen more for the Carolina rookie linebacker against the Falcons.
Tackles are somewhat overrated. If a player makes a tackle then it could also mean his defense was on the field enough to put him in a position to to make all those tackles or the defense ran the ball in his direction a lot. The single season leader in tackles for Carolina is James Anderson. This from a team who has had probably 10 linebackers that were better than Anderson just in the last 10 years. I'm not knocking Kuechly, but just acknowledging a partial truth to the "tackles" statistic.
l. The Rams, who are relevant again, much sooner than we thought they'd be.
They beat the Bills by three points. Stop pushing the Rams on your readers simply because you and Jeff Fisher have the same agent. The Rams are playing pretty well, but they beat the Bills by three points. That's not something to start talking about increased "relevance" over. They may be a team on the rise, but they also may not be. Give it time to breathe.
2. I think this is what I didn't like about Week 14:
b. Horrendous coverage by DeAngelo Hall on the second touchdown reception by Anquan Boldin. Pausing with the ball in the air?
If he isn't playing for a new contract then Hall isn't interested in your critiques. It's like Peter has never seen DeAngelo Hall play corner before.
j. The way Robert Griffin III's right leg flailed. I am surprised the thing didn't break in half. And he might play Sunday? That can't be real.
With Robert Griffin, all things are possible.
4. I think Texas A&M quarterback Johnny Manziel, at 6-foot-1, will be an intriguing pro whenever he chooses to enter the NFL draft. What's good for him, obviously, is the success of Drew Brees and Russell Wilson, which will diminish the perceived importance of height in a scouting report for quarterbacks.
The best part is Manziel should be entering the NFL about the same time Tony Romo is getting ready to leave the NFL, so there will at least one NFL quarterback who looks like he does a mean "Sling Blade" impression without actually knowing he is doing one.
5. I think, with all the talk about Jon Gruden's coaching candidacies, remember these things:
b. Gruden's going to have to have a veteran quarterback who's smart enough to process and execute the whims of his offense, and to be flexible. A Tony Romo, for instance, or Philip Rivers.
Given Gruden's history of collecting quarterbacks in Tampa Bay, he may want three or four veteran quarterbacks on the roster to process his super-intricate offense.
c. I would not be at all surprised if the Cowboys have a bad final three weeks if Jerry Jones goes after Gruden hard.
...said every single person after the end of every single season since Jon Gruden was fired by the Buccaneers.
Wasn't it just over a month ago Peter King had the Cowboys going hard after Sean Payton? What happened with that? Maybe Peter thinks the Cowboys are going to hire both Payton and Gruden to be their head coach and they would share the title.
"I guarantee you, this guy Jon Gruden, he's real team player. I will now make up a nickname for him on the spot. He's just a player. I love this guy, Jon Gruden. He would just love the idea of coaching with a legend like Sean Payton."
6. I think Brandon Jacobs cannot hide his disgust any longer at being nothing but an insurance policy for the Niners. Via ProFootballTalk.com, Jacobs wrote on Instagram this week, asked by a fan to put up a photo of him wearing some 49ers gear: "I am on this team rotting away so why would I wanna put any pics up of anything that say niners this is by far the worst year I ever had, I'll tell you like I told plenty others."
I always knew Jacobs wouldn't take the bench well. He never did in New Jersey either.
Then why did he choose to sign with a team that already had Frank Gore and Kendall Hunter at the running back position?
Just for your information, in the last 45 NFL regular season weeks, kickers have missed 23 extra points. That's 23 misses in 705 games (not including Sunday). I've been harping on this and probably won't stop: Why waste 45 seconds on a play that's 99.3 percent certain (which it's been since the start of the 2010 season)?
A FCS-team lost a playoff game two weekends ago when they missed an extra point.
10. I think these are my non-NFL thoughts of the week:
Oh goody.
a. Johnny Football is a good Heisman choice, but for many reasons, I thought Manti Te'o was a better one.
b. Nothing against Manziel (how many first-year starting quarterbacks walk into Tuscaloosa and beat Nick Saban and the unbeaten Tide?), and I don't watch a lot of college football, so I shouldn't have a vote. But think of this: Where was Notre Dame before this season in the eyes of America? Not ranked in the AP writers' poll, ranked 24th in the USA Today coaches' poll.
So Johnny Manziel shouldn't win the Heisman because a bunch of pollsters who were guessing at how good Notre Dame was prior to this season were very wrong in where they ranked the Fighting Irish? I hate preseason polls because idiots like Peter King use them as if they are a science and not just one big guessing game. This is nonsense. Where was Texas A&M ranked before the season? They weren't. They ended the season ranked #10 in the USA Poll and #9 in the AP Poll. Texas A&M started the season unranked in both the AP and USA poll. Notre Dame got more votes for the Top 25 than Texas A&M did in preseason polls. You could use the same logic to support Manziel for Heisman that is being used by Peter to support Te'o for the Heisman.
h. I like that Royals-Rays trade for Kansas City, because I'm very partial to James Shields and like Wade Davis too. I guess the outfielder Tampa Bay got, Will Myers, might be the best player in minor-league baseball, and obviously the Rays know what they're doing. But this is the first time in forever Kansas City looks to have a major-league rotation (Shields, Davis, the enigmatic Ervin Santana, Jeremy Guthrie and someone). The Royals might be OK.
The Royals now have a rotation with a #3 starter, a swing starter, a two #4-#5 starters. All they had to do was given up one of the their best hitting prospects (Wil Myers) and a pitcher who projects to be a #3 starter (Jake Odorizzi), both under team control for 5-6 years, to get a #3 starter and a swing starter. What a deal! The Royals are in win-now mode. This should be fun to watch.
i. It's entirely possible the Red Sox are the fifth-best team in the East. Just because you spend $13 million a year on Shane Victorino doesn't make him a $13-million-a-year player.
No way. Shane Victorino is very worth $13 million per year. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise, Peter. I felt bad about the Braves giving B.J. Upton $15 million per year until I saw Victorino got $13 million per year. Oh, and Mike Napoli is also worth $13 million per year...well, maybe he actually is due to his versatility.
j. Chris Christie on The Daily Show With Jon Stewart was kid-like talking about hugging his new best friend, Bruce Springsteen. Cute.
Adrian Peterson is not chasing 2,000 yards. He is chasing 2,105. The record.
The English language begins weeping violently. Or as Peter King would say,
"The English language is not happy. It is very sad. Feelings hurt."
Kirk Cousins is going to write for The New Yorker someday, and maybe not about football.
Not unless "Time" or "Newsweek" scoop him up first based entirely on a series of quotes he gave to Peter King in December 2012. Really that's all you need to do in order to become a well-respected writer is to give Peter a series of really, really deep quotes.
All of the stories of the day in due time, but this point first: Three weeks from today, the 50 voters for the annual Associated Press NFL awards have to file their ballots. Three weeks out every year, most of the races are either clear or have two or three men in the running. This year, as I see it, there's not a single easy race.
Except for "Super-Precocious Defensive Player of the Year," that award is already wrapped up. Step on up and take off your shirt for Pet---I mean, come and accept your award J.J. Watt!
For MVP, I could make a solid case for any of the three quarterbacks with at least 20 more touchdowns than interceptions
So apparently this is sole criteria for winning the MVP award? The MVP should go to whichever quarterback has 20 more touchdowns than interceptions.
And what about the rookie quarterbacks, with their insane frosh seasons; Robert Griffin III leads the league in passer rating. There's not a bad choice.
Robert Griffin for MVP? It's probably not a really great choice either. Give him the Offensive Rookie of the Year award and he'll get the MVP another season. You know what? Fuck it, just give the MVP to Andrew Luck. Why not?
I'll take the quarterback with the longest winning streak (eight games) and who's had the biggest adjustment to make of all the very good ones this year, schematically and physically, on a new team in a new city. For now, give me Peyton Manning.
No, literally, Peter wants us to give him Peyton Manning, which obviously can't be done. What have we told you about owning football players Peter? You can't own Peyton Manning and make him as your friend so you can sit on the front porch swing together drinking sweet tea. Have you learned nothing from kidnapping Brett Favre in 2003?
For now, give me Peterson, with an asterisk, because he has to keep up his breakneck pace when the three remaining defenses he'll face all know he'll be getting the ball early and often.
So for MVP Peter King is taking both Adrian Peterson and Peyton Manning, who have apparently formed some sort of running back-quarterback hybrid in Peter's mind named Peyton Peterson. I can't say I am surprised. Peter desires to be liked by NFL players and can't seem to pick just one Offensive or Defensive Player of the Week in MMQB, so I wouldn't expect him to be able to pick just one MVP for the NFL over an entire year.
For Defensive Player of the Year, it's likely to be a race between Watt, Miller and Smith, with Seattle cornerback Richard Sherman an outside threat. To me, it's a choice between one of the best pass rushers to come into the league in years, Smith, versus two men who are more all-around run-pass defenders, Watt and Miller. A factor that must be considered, obviously, is Smith threatening the NFL sack record. He has 19.5 after getting two Sunday against Miami.
I am sorry, who is this "Aldon Smith" guy again? Is he white? Does he knock down passes like King Kong knocks down planes? How fucking precocious is he? Peter hasn't ever heard of this "Aldon Smith" guy, but he'll use the Google to find out who he is.
Today I'll take Watt, with his 16.5 sacks and league-record 15 passes batted down, four of which resulted in Houston interceptions. Three weeks from today, who knows?
Me. I know J.J. Watt will be the answer three weeks from today, eight weeks from today or eight years from today, because he has batted down passes that (through some luck) resulted in interceptions.
For Offensive Rookie, three quarterbacks of teams that didn't make the playoffs last year are in playoff contention this season...Today I'd take Griffin, with his rookie-QB record 748 rushing yards and league-leading 104.2 rating. But if he misses time with his knee injury, Wilson or Luck could sneak in.
Because Robert Griffin's candidacy should be affected because he suffered a knee injury running for some of his 748 rushing yards on the season. Andrew Luck or Russell Wilson are better rookies because Robert Griffin was the best rookie, but he got injured.
I'm confused as to how Peter wouldn't be willing to give Offensive Rookie of the Year to Robert Griffin if he didn't play in Weeks 15-17 due to injury, but he is willing to allow Chuck Pagano to share the Coach of the Year award when he hasn't been the head coach of the Colts for 80% of the season due to illness. I guess Peter picks and chooses when his awards are going to be time-based. That's not inconsistent at all.
For Defensive Rookie, three linebackers stepped in from day one and became tackling machines -- Carolina's Luke Kuechly, Seattle's Bobby Wagner and Tampa Bay's Lavonte David.
Tackles are somewhat overrated, but I will allow it for the time being. I've seen quite a few linebackers who have a lot of tackles simply because they are the guy who tackles the ball carrier after he has gained 5-6 yards. I'm thinking of Micheal Barrow specifically.
For now, for the wins and the leadership and filling a gaping hole, I'll take Wagner of the Seahawks.
Well, it makes sense. You obviously want to give an individual rookie award to the player who is on the team with the most wins. It's not like the Buccaneers had a gaping hole in the spot where Derrick Brooks played or the Panthers had a gaping hole at middle linebacker this year when Jon Beason went down. Bad point, Peter, very bad point. I like your conclusion, but the way you got there is suspect.
For Coach of the Year, line 'em up...My choice, today? I'll split my vote between the two men coaching the Indianapolis Colts: leukemia-stricken Chuck Pagano (by text and telephone) and interim Bruce Arians (by daily hard coaching).
No, no, no. Sentiment aside, just give it to Bruce Arians. Give Chuck Pagano "Inspiration of the Year" or something, but Bruce Arians is the head coach of the Colts and should win this award.
For Comeback Player, we could argue all day about Peterson coming back to a very high level after surgery and Peyton Manning, for returning to Peyton Manning form after something no quarterback's ever done -- playing the position coming off four neck procedures in two years. And don't forget the stirring comeback of Carolina linebacker Thomas Davis, who'd win it in a walk in almost any other year.
I don't think this award can go to Adrian Peterson. He played in 12 games last year. That's 75% of the season. To win the Comeback Player of the Year award I would think a player should miss a large portion of the previous season. "Comeback" in the award name seems to indicate the player didn't play much last year and came back to the NFL to play at a high level. Maybe I'm reading too much into it. Peterson's recovery is amazing, but I think it has to come down to Peyton Manning and Thomas Davis since they missed large portions of last season (well, Davis missed large portions of the previous three seasons). Davis played in 1.5 games and Manning missed the entire season in 2011.
RGIII must be Elastic Man. Robert Griffin III's right knee whipped after being hit by a Ravens' defender in the fourth quarter at FedEx Field, and it hyperextended grotesquely. Remarkably, his MRI showed a knee sprain, which is a partial ligament tear, but not major damage. The Redskins know he can't expose himself to as many hits as he does at 218 pounds, but now's not the time for a lecture.
Now would be the time for a lecture because this injury is a warning as to what can happen when Griffin exposes himself and his body to hard hits on the football field. These hits can't be completely stopped, but this injury is a reminder of what can happen if Griffin doesn't slide or doesn't get a chance to slide.
The Colts take command of the AFC Wild-Card race. Pittsburgh lost, embarrassingly, to San Diego. Cincinnati got out-emotioned by the Cowboys.
I'm not even sure what "out-emotioned" means. I think Peter made this up.
David Wilson of the Giants ran back kicks for a total of 227 yards Sunday, including an electric 97-yard touchdown return, the longest for the franchise since the LBJ Administration. Tampa coach Greg Schiano's idea -- proposed to Roger Goodell when Schiano was still the Rutgers coach -- to eliminate the kickoff in favor of allowing a team to opt to go for it on 4th-and-15 from its 30-yard line ("So arbitrary it sounds like it was pulled out of a hat,'' one coach said Friday) seemed like a longshot before Sunday. But after the return electricity in the Meadowlands it seems ever more unlikely.
So David Wilson saved the kickoff by returning a kickoff for a touchdown? I don't get this. Is David Wilson the first player to ever return a kickoff for a touchdown? Why would half a century of kickoffs be forgotten by Roger Goodell until David Wilson showed up and ran a kickoff back for a touchdown? Roger Goodell knows the kickoff can result in exciting plays, but he also knows players can get injured on the kickoff, which is why he thought about eliminating the kickoff in the first place.
I think Goodell's point was, excitement or not, if there's evidence that concussion and other neck and knee injuries can be reduced significantly by the elimination of the kickoff, it's only a matter of time before something takes its place -- for the long-term health of the game and its players.
But has Goodell seen David Wilson's kickoff return? He wouldn't give a shit about the long-term health of the game and its players if he had seen it.
The Vikings are in a clump of teams at 7-6, and they may have to win out to make the playoffs. That's fine with Peterson, because winning means playing well, and playing well means he won't have to do it all himself.
Oh no, with Christian Ponder as the Vikings quarterback and Percy Harvin injured, then Adrian Peterson is going to have to do it all himself.
The forgotten rookie quarterback.
On draft weekend, Michigan State's Kirk Cousins thought there were a lot of teams that might pick him. Washington wasn't one of them, not after taking Robert Griffin III in the first round. But the Redskins took him at pick 102. "I was scratching my head too,'' Cousins said Sunday evening, "I think like a lot of people were."
I was shopping at Whole Foods. I think we all know where we were when Kirk Cousins got drafted. I remember having a lengthy discussion with a guy in the produce section about when Kirk Cousins was going to get drafted. I remember the conversation because the guy had no idea who Kirk Cousins was and I just made that entire story up.
Timeout. Third-and-5. Offensive coordinator Kyle Shanahan called a play with Cousins, in the pocket, instructed to take his time, survey his options, and pick the most open one.
"I didn't like the look I got right away,'' Cousins said. "Something inside me said to take off and try to make a play. That's what you do sometimes as a quarterback. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.''
But how many sometimes come when you're cold off the bench, with your team's playoff life at stake?
Three times, Peter. The answer is three times.
"It happened so fast,'' Cousins said. "I definitely didn't want to take a sack. We weren't playing The Little Sisters of the Poor out there. I was out of the pocket, and I just channeled my inner RGIII, and Pierre got open in the corner of the end zone.''
"Little Sisters of the Poor out there." I'm shocked, dismayed, awed, somewhat flabbergasted that Kirk Cousins isn't writing for "The New Yorker" right now or at least consulting on the State of the Union address right now.
Kirk Cousins: Athlete, poet, writer, wordsmith, sometimes robot.
"One of the things I've learned about being a quarterback,'' said Cousins, and for a minute, he sounded like a Penn professor of Football 101 with a tweed coat on,
That sentence is an incredibly basic sentence that anyone with an IQ over 100 could state. I don't see how Cousins sounds like a Penn professor, but I think Peter King has got himself a little crush. The NFL is just so full of precocious 20-something athletic men. It's such a joy for Peter to be around!
"is that it's a balance between being a robot and being an artist.
Actually, this sounds like a freshman Penn student talking at a party while high trying to impress a girl by sounding smart. Maybe that's what Peter meant.
On the touchdown to Garcon, that's being an artist; you don't really know how it's going to look, but you've just got to get out of the pocket and create something.
I got it. Artists don't know what they are creating or how it will look, you just have to do it. I'm not an artist, but I've always been under the impression an artist usually envisions and has an idea of what he/she is creating.
On the two-point conversion, you're a robot. You take the play and do what's called, because you know if it's blocked the right way and set up the right way, it'll work -- the quarterback just executes it."
That is unless the play isn't blocked the right way, in which case Kirk Cousins would then become an artist and get out of the pocket and create something.
Peter King is one easily impressed person if he thinks Kirk Cousins quote sounds like a Penn professor teaching Football 101 and not the ramblings of a quarterback who is coming off the biggest moment of his NFL career.
It all seems so empty, of course, because a service and a ball cannot bring her boy back from this awful death, from an irresponsible accident by his best friend, but what do you do after a senseless and awful death? You do the best you can.
"There's no road map for this,'' Garrett said quietly, 90 minutes after the game. "No script.''
Well it sounds like rather than be a robot, Jason Garrett needs to be an artist.
"The first week he's here, he's playing every snap in practice like it's a game. That first week, he wins our scout team player of the week. He's rushing the passer, giving all our tackles -- Tyron Smith, Doug Free, Jermey Parnell -- everything they can handle. I take notes at practice, and I can't tell you how often I wrote down, 'Jerry Brown' with an exclamation point.
Garrett was actually very angry with the California governor and wanted to remind himself of this, but the point remains. "Jerry Brown" was written on a piece of paper with an exclamation point.
Fine Fifteen
3. Denver (10-3). As the indefatigable Mike Reiss points out, Manning-Brady XIV is assured for 2013 now that Denver and New England have both clinched their divisions.
Thank God. We can all rest knowing there will be another hyped-up Manning-Brady game next year. Otherwise, if there wasn't a guarantee these two quarterbacks might meet I don't know how I could go on.
4. San Francisco (9-3-1). Remember when it was panicsville about Colin Kaepernick? You know, like, five days ago? The option run around left end cured that, at least for the time being.
No, I don't remember when it was panicsville about Colin Kaepernick. I do remember when Peter is panicsville in MMQB on a variety of topics from week-to-week, but I am sure since Peter is the mouthpiece for all NFL fans I was in a panic on the inside about Kaepernick.
5. Atlanta (11-2). Almost every good team in history has had a nightmare day, and this was Atlanta's. The key for Mike Smith now is to make sure it doesn't mushroom. You know how to do that?
Don't let your opponent get out to a 23-0 lead and hold the ball for most of the first half?
11. Indianapolis (9-4). I keep watching the Colts and saying Andrew Luck makes too many mistakes and there are holes in the secondary and they have a flawed offensive line and whatever else. But then Cassius Vaughn and Jerrell Freeman and Vick Ballard make plays, and it forces me to just say, "Shut up, logic."
The key, and stop me if I sound too much like a Penn professor, is that the Colts are playing like artists, but they also know when to play like robots.
Offensive Player of the Week
Cam Newton, QB, Carolina. The 30-20 win over NFC South first-place Atlanta showcased the 2011 Cam: 23 of 35 for 287 yards and two touchdowns, plus nine carries for 116 yards, including a 72-yard touchdown run. "I think this game allows me to have a little chip on my shoulder,'' said Newton. That's what he had most of last year.
I'm not fooled, Peter still hates him. Isn't it funny how having a chip on your shoulder as a quarterback plays a lot better with the media when you are winning football games?
Special Teams Player of the Week
David Wilson, RB/KR, New York Giants. For going 97 yards untouched on a kickoff return (longest GMen TD return on a kickoff since 1964) to forge a 7-7 tie in the first quarter of a game the Giants had to have.
Plus Wilson saved the NFL from changing the kickoff rules to a rule change that Greg Schiano suggested. If Roger Goodell is Scrooge then David Wilson was the Ghost of Christmas Present reminding Goodell how great kickoffs are.
"Maybe his wife can teach him how to throw."
-- FOX NFL analyst Jimmy Johnson, on Minnesota quarterback Christian Ponder, who was recently engaged to ESPN college sideline reporter Samantha Steele. Johnson also said Ponder is the worst quarterback in the NFL.
Remember back when the Vikings beat the 49ers and there was discussion about how much Christian Ponder was improving even though it was still early in the year? Whatever happened to those good old days?
The last time Detroit won at Lambeau Field was this week 21 years ago, Dec. 15, 1991.
That day, Brett Favre was a 248-pound third-string rookie quarterback in Atlanta, behind Chris Miller and Billy Joe Tolliver. While Favre sat on the bench, as he always did that season, Deion Sanders had two interceptions and Mike Rozier was the leading rusher for Atlanta.
Peter King wonders why people accuse him of having an infatuation with Brett Favre, but he brings it on himself. The fact the Lions had not won at Lambeau Field since 1991 isn't impressive enough, oh no, Peter has to use Brett Favre's career as a measure of exactly how long ago this was in case no one knows it is the year 2012. He measures time according to where Favre was in his career at that time. The accusations of an infatuation with Favre are correct to be made.
Mr. Starwood Preferred Member Travel Note of the Week
I was the Passenger You Don't Want to Be Near in the Quiet Car, on an Amtrak regional train, Providence to New York, Saturday afternoon. The idiot passenger. I put my phone on vibrate, and 10 minutes into the trip, it vibrated, and I answered it, bent over and whispering, not sure who it'd be. Of course the conductor came by. "Library-type atmophere, sir,'' he said. "Off the phone.'' I got off. Twenty minutes later, there was another call. Not urgent, but I picked it up anyway. Same deal. Conductor walked over. "Last time I'll tell you this,'' he said. "Off the phone or move."
He was right. I was wrong. The car was half-empty, but that doesn't matter. I was what I shake my head at on the Quiet Car often -- the idiot who whispers on the phone when you're not supposed to be on the phone. Felt like a bum. The rules of the train are not complex. If you can't follow 'em, walk.
If only there was a national writer who could eviscerate Peter for talking on his cell phone when he is specifically not supposed to do this. Unfortunately the sportswriter who usually eviscerates such dangerous people is the one doing the talking on the cell phone when he isn't supposed to. Peter says "If you can't follow 'em, walk" in reference to the rules but I have a feeling he would pick the phone up yet again in this situation. Of course it seems Peter has never thought the rules pertained to him. He tells his readers he is tired of all the Favre talk and then talks about Favre, he stares down other people for being annoying on the Acela but tells us all about phone conversations he had on the train, and now he goes in the Quiet Car knowing he shouldn't pick up his cell phone and then does so twice.
"Definition of team quitting? 9 losses n a row. 9th loss 58-0! Injuries handling of offense worst n NFL. Adrian Wilson&Darnell Dockett situations!''
-- @FitzBeatSr, Larry Fitzgerald Sr., father of the Arizona wide receiver, after the ridiculous loss by the Cardinals in Seattle. The son has been quite quiet through it all, but knowing the Cards receiver as I do, this is killing him -- and he's not going to sit idly by without trying to get out if he doesn't think the team can solve the endless quarterback problem.
I have difficulty feeling bad for Larry Fitzgerald. He's the one who asked that the Cardinals draft Michael Floyd because he wanted some pressure off of him. Who is to say what the Cardinals would have done with the draft pick if Fitzgerald had not stated he wanted Floyd, but this is reason #102 you don't let players help out or try to please players with personnel moves.
1. I think this is what I liked about Week 14:
a. Well, Greg Hardy, I guess you were right.
Hardy said the Panthers were a better team than the Falcons, which is probably a lie.
If you ever want to see the defensive end of a 4-9 team talk shit after a win look no further.
That's Hardy talking shit and saying "Get the fuck off our field" in reference to Matt Ryan screaming that at the Panthers bench after the first game this year in Atlanta. Such drama.
c. The tackling machine known as Luke Kuechly. Sixteen more for the Carolina rookie linebacker against the Falcons.
Tackles are somewhat overrated. If a player makes a tackle then it could also mean his defense was on the field enough to put him in a position to to make all those tackles or the defense ran the ball in his direction a lot. The single season leader in tackles for Carolina is James Anderson. This from a team who has had probably 10 linebackers that were better than Anderson just in the last 10 years. I'm not knocking Kuechly, but just acknowledging a partial truth to the "tackles" statistic.
l. The Rams, who are relevant again, much sooner than we thought they'd be.
They beat the Bills by three points. Stop pushing the Rams on your readers simply because you and Jeff Fisher have the same agent. The Rams are playing pretty well, but they beat the Bills by three points. That's not something to start talking about increased "relevance" over. They may be a team on the rise, but they also may not be. Give it time to breathe.
2. I think this is what I didn't like about Week 14:
b. Horrendous coverage by DeAngelo Hall on the second touchdown reception by Anquan Boldin. Pausing with the ball in the air?
If he isn't playing for a new contract then Hall isn't interested in your critiques. It's like Peter has never seen DeAngelo Hall play corner before.
j. The way Robert Griffin III's right leg flailed. I am surprised the thing didn't break in half. And he might play Sunday? That can't be real.
With Robert Griffin, all things are possible.
4. I think Texas A&M quarterback Johnny Manziel, at 6-foot-1, will be an intriguing pro whenever he chooses to enter the NFL draft. What's good for him, obviously, is the success of Drew Brees and Russell Wilson, which will diminish the perceived importance of height in a scouting report for quarterbacks.
The best part is Manziel should be entering the NFL about the same time Tony Romo is getting ready to leave the NFL, so there will at least one NFL quarterback who looks like he does a mean "Sling Blade" impression without actually knowing he is doing one.
5. I think, with all the talk about Jon Gruden's coaching candidacies, remember these things:
b. Gruden's going to have to have a veteran quarterback who's smart enough to process and execute the whims of his offense, and to be flexible. A Tony Romo, for instance, or Philip Rivers.
Given Gruden's history of collecting quarterbacks in Tampa Bay, he may want three or four veteran quarterbacks on the roster to process his super-intricate offense.
c. I would not be at all surprised if the Cowboys have a bad final three weeks if Jerry Jones goes after Gruden hard.
...said every single person after the end of every single season since Jon Gruden was fired by the Buccaneers.
Wasn't it just over a month ago Peter King had the Cowboys going hard after Sean Payton? What happened with that? Maybe Peter thinks the Cowboys are going to hire both Payton and Gruden to be their head coach and they would share the title.
"I guarantee you, this guy Jon Gruden, he's real team player. I will now make up a nickname for him on the spot. He's just a player. I love this guy, Jon Gruden. He would just love the idea of coaching with a legend like Sean Payton."
6. I think Brandon Jacobs cannot hide his disgust any longer at being nothing but an insurance policy for the Niners. Via ProFootballTalk.com, Jacobs wrote on Instagram this week, asked by a fan to put up a photo of him wearing some 49ers gear: "I am on this team rotting away so why would I wanna put any pics up of anything that say niners this is by far the worst year I ever had, I'll tell you like I told plenty others."
I always knew Jacobs wouldn't take the bench well. He never did in New Jersey either.
Then why did he choose to sign with a team that already had Frank Gore and Kendall Hunter at the running back position?
Just for your information, in the last 45 NFL regular season weeks, kickers have missed 23 extra points. That's 23 misses in 705 games (not including Sunday). I've been harping on this and probably won't stop: Why waste 45 seconds on a play that's 99.3 percent certain (which it's been since the start of the 2010 season)?
A FCS-team lost a playoff game two weekends ago when they missed an extra point.
10. I think these are my non-NFL thoughts of the week:
Oh goody.
a. Johnny Football is a good Heisman choice, but for many reasons, I thought Manti Te'o was a better one.
b. Nothing against Manziel (how many first-year starting quarterbacks walk into Tuscaloosa and beat Nick Saban and the unbeaten Tide?), and I don't watch a lot of college football, so I shouldn't have a vote. But think of this: Where was Notre Dame before this season in the eyes of America? Not ranked in the AP writers' poll, ranked 24th in the USA Today coaches' poll.
So Johnny Manziel shouldn't win the Heisman because a bunch of pollsters who were guessing at how good Notre Dame was prior to this season were very wrong in where they ranked the Fighting Irish? I hate preseason polls because idiots like Peter King use them as if they are a science and not just one big guessing game. This is nonsense. Where was Texas A&M ranked before the season? They weren't. They ended the season ranked #10 in the USA Poll and #9 in the AP Poll. Texas A&M started the season unranked in both the AP and USA poll. Notre Dame got more votes for the Top 25 than Texas A&M did in preseason polls. You could use the same logic to support Manziel for Heisman that is being used by Peter to support Te'o for the Heisman.
h. I like that Royals-Rays trade for Kansas City, because I'm very partial to James Shields and like Wade Davis too. I guess the outfielder Tampa Bay got, Will Myers, might be the best player in minor-league baseball, and obviously the Rays know what they're doing. But this is the first time in forever Kansas City looks to have a major-league rotation (Shields, Davis, the enigmatic Ervin Santana, Jeremy Guthrie and someone). The Royals might be OK.
The Royals now have a rotation with a #3 starter, a swing starter, a two #4-#5 starters. All they had to do was given up one of the their best hitting prospects (Wil Myers) and a pitcher who projects to be a #3 starter (Jake Odorizzi), both under team control for 5-6 years, to get a #3 starter and a swing starter. What a deal! The Royals are in win-now mode. This should be fun to watch.
i. It's entirely possible the Red Sox are the fifth-best team in the East. Just because you spend $13 million a year on Shane Victorino doesn't make him a $13-million-a-year player.
No way. Shane Victorino is very worth $13 million per year. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise, Peter. I felt bad about the Braves giving B.J. Upton $15 million per year until I saw Victorino got $13 million per year. Oh, and Mike Napoli is also worth $13 million per year...well, maybe he actually is due to his versatility.
j. Chris Christie on The Daily Show With Jon Stewart was kid-like talking about hugging his new best friend, Bruce Springsteen. Cute.
Monday, December 10, 2012
3 comments ...Our Pets' Heads Are Falling Off!: Week 14
There were a couple of surprising results in this week's NFL games. The Chargers, Panthers, Vikings, and Eagles all managed to upset the opponents. The Cardinals on the other hand...not so much.
Denver Broncos 26 Oakland Raiders 13
I don't know what the betting line on this game was, but it was a pretty good bet the Broncos would win this game, if not cover the spread. Even with Darren McFadden back the Raiders couldn't get anything going offensively. Of course McFadden did re-injure his ankle (what a shock, McFadden got injured...again...didn't see that coming) later in the game, so he wasn't able to finish the game. The Broncos were very good on offense. Knowshon Moreno made another cameo appearance and ran for 119 yards on 32 carries. Peyton Manning makes everyone around him better. The incompetent can become competent and good receivers are made into Pro Bowl receivers. I would like to see if Manning signed with the Raiders if he could make Darren McFadden healthy over his entire career. Now that would be a real miracle. Carson Palmer is accumulating some real good passing yards this year because the Raiders are coming from behind and haven't had much of a running game. So just remember that when he flirts with 4600 or 4700 yards passing. Next week for the Broncos is the Baltimore-Denver game, which has implications for homefield advantage in the playoffs. Not to be snide, but Dennis Allen's father died earlier this week so I thought God would at least use Bill Simmons "Tragedy Corollary" to help the Raiders win this game. I guess God hates the Raiders, which Raiders fans probably suspected. It's probably due to the Raiders loose affiliation with N.W.A. in the late 1980's. God doesn't like gangsta' rap. Right now it looks really hard for any team to beat the Broncos, but how many times did we say that about a Peyton Manning-led Indianapolis Colts team? Of course, those Colts teams may not have had a really good defense like this year's Broncos team has.
Carolina Panthers 30 Atlanta Falcons 20
Apparently the key to beating the Falcons is to get to a 23-0 lead and not letting them get in a position where they can have a great comeback. The Falcons offense struggled in the first half of the game and then came alive in the second half of the game as the Panthers defense desperately tried to help the Falcons win the game by giving Matt Ryan easy pass lanes and playing soft defense. Fortunately their own incompetence was defeated by brief dsiplays of competence in keeping the Falcons out of the end zone and forcing a turnover in the second half. The tone was set when the Panthers won their first coin toss of the season. Cam Newton was fantastic in this game and has thrown two interceptions over his last six games. I hope no one writes the Falcons off after this game because I doubt they will get behind 23-0 in any further games. Nearly every good team has a "what the hell" game and this is probably that game for the Falcons this season. The Falcons season is still decided by how they do in the playoffs and if they can't run the ball and the defense gives up more big plays to put the Falcons in a hole then they could have another short playoff run. I'm not counting the Falcons out. This was a wake-up call game.
San Francisco 49ers 27 Miami Dolphins 13
This 49ers defense is brutal to opposing offenses. They gave up 227 total yards to the Dolphins and the offense didn't commit any turnovers. If I am nitpicking, which I do best, I would say the Dolphins sacked Colin Kaepernick four times, so that is an issue. Of course, Kaepernick only threw five incomplete passes and had more total yards than the entire Dolphins team...so there's that. I was no by means a big Alex Smith fan and Kaepernick presents the 49ers offense with a higher ceiling, so maybe the quarterback switch was a good move for Harbaugh and the 49ers. I think the blueprint to beat the 49ers is still the same though. The opposing team has to stop the 49ers from running the ball and forcing them into tough passing situations. It's a lot easier said than done and the Dolphins couldn't do it with a pretty good defense. Ryan Tannehill seems to be taking a few steps backwards over the last few games. He's had four touchdowns and six interceptions since leaving the Jets game on October 28. I wouldn't call it a permanent step back and he doesn't have the best team around him, so I will make a few excuses for him until I am given a reason not to. Oh, and Aldon Smith has 19.5 sacks this year. I feel like there hasn't been much made of how well he has played this year. Maybe the mainstream media should focus more on his ability to sack the quarterback.
St. Louis Rams 15 Buffalo Bills 12
The Bills refused to win this game. They had two chances on the final drive to intercept Sam Bradford and stop him from scoring a touchdown on the game-winning drive, but they couldn't do it. I feel for Bills fans because George Wilson dropped both chances to intercept Bradford on that last drive. The Rams defensive line sacked Ryan Fitzpatrick five times in the game and Fitzpatrick did his usual throw an interception and throw a touchdown pass in the game. He didn't do much to lose the game and didn't do much to win the game. The Rams are closer to the 8-8-type record I fully expect from a Jeff Fisher-led team. I guess there are worse records for a team to have. Neither team ran the ball well, with both teams combining for 47 rushing attempts for 139 yards. The Rams were 2-2 in the red zone in this game and the Bills were 1-3. In a three point game that's pretty much the difference in who won or who lost. On a day when neither team had 300 yards of offense, when the Bills blow two out of three red zone chances and can't catch potential interceptions on the game-winning drive, it's not a surprise the Rams won the game. Sometimes the key to winning the game is just not screwing up as much as the other team.
Dallas Cowboys 20 Cincinnati Bengals 19
I don't yell at the television much, but I was yelling at the television at the end of this game. At the very end of this game the Cowboys were driving and had approximately 35 seconds left and were holding (I believe) two timeouts. Jason Garrett chose to run one play up the middle and then call timeout to set up a game-winning field goal with four seconds left. I thought, and still think, he should have tried to get the ball closer for the field goal, especially when holding two timeouts. The odds of DeMarco Murray fumbling are lower than the odds of Dan Bailey missing a 40 yard field goal. There seems to be an infatuation this year with head coaches running time down and not getting as much yardage as possible in order to set up a close game-winning field goal. The Cowboys did a great job focusing after the horrific accident on Saturday that killed Jerry Brown. I don't know how they did it. This game was somewhat sloppy with eight sacks and the Cowboys struggled to run the ball against a stout Bengals defense. I keep telling myself this Bengals team isn't any different from past Bengals teams, and they do have to play the Eagles-Steelers-Ravens to end the year, but their defense has played pretty well this year. Maybe they could win a playoff game.
Cleveland Browns 30 Kansas City Chiefs 7
Since certain Chiefs players thought Jovan Belcher had something to do with their win over the Panthers last (as opposed to the Panthers simply not being a very good team), I wonder if Chiefs players think Belcher caused them to get their ass kicked by the feisty Browns? Probably not. The dead, even the dead who are murderers, only help their teammates out from the grave. That's how the story usually goes at least. Phil Dawson sees the Browns having turned a corner.
"It's all kind of coming together," said 14-year veteran kicker Phil Dawson, who booted three field goals. "We're just doing all the little things right now. Guys are hungry to come back to work every day. There's some energy around here that I haven't felt. This is all good."
It seems like the Browns are starting to build something productive in Cleveland and they certainly have some good young offensive players to build the team around. They have been competitive in nearly every single game they have played this season. Now it's time for me to piss in their cereal and point out exactly who the Browns have beaten...so the Browns have beaten in order:
Cincinnati
San Diego
Pittsburgh (this was Roethlisberger-less seven turnovers Pittsburgh)
Oakland
Kansas City
It's not exactly a murderer's row of teams, but I guess they can't change their schedule. I see positive vibes, but am cautiously optimistic as usual. As for the Chiefs, Brady Quinn turned back into Brady Quinn and was sacked five times. 80 of the Chiefs 310 yards came on one run by Jamaal Charles as well. I still think if Romeo Crennel isn't fired, then Scott Pioli needs to be, and we all know new General Managers like to hire their own coach so they may as well fire Crennel too. The disaster in Kansas City was covered up for one week. Now the disaster is back.
Indianapolis Colts 27 Tennessee Titans 23
Adam Vinatieri is still winning games with his foot.
Andrew Luck is still winning games he's not supposed to.
That was the first line in the ESPN game recap. I don't get it. Why should Andrew Luck not have won a game against a 4-8 Titans team? Because the Colts were down 13 points at halftime? The Colts got the ball first in the second half, so they had plenty of time and opportunities to win this game even being down at halftime. Plus the Colts were at home, which always helps. I feel like this "Luck is clutch and winning games he shouldn't" narrative is going to start skidding out of control soon into being used anytime the Colts win a game. He's playing very well, but a home game against the Titans is a game he should win. I will also point, because I am an asshole, that Luck threw two interceptions to one touchdown and completed less than 50% of his passes for the second consecutive week. Luck is "clutch" but his numbers are ordinary (54.9% completion percentage 18:18 TD/INT ratio, 74.5 QB rating), which is why I think Robert Griffin should be Offensive Rookie of the Year. I'm not changing my mind about this until I do change my mind. The Titans appear to have a couple good wide receivers with Britt and Kendall Wright, so why can't Chris Johnson find running lanes? I'm guessing it is the banged-up offensive line that is the issue. I don't know either if Jake Locker is the answer at quarterback for the Titans or if their problems lie somewhere else.
Minnesota Vikings 21 Chicago Bears 14
Of course the Vikings beat the Bears and are now separated by one game in the NFC North. The Bears nearly doubled the offensive output of the Vikings in terms of total yards and Christian Ponder was pathetic as usual, but the Vikings won the game. Do you know why? Because Christian Ponder is a winner, dammit. A winner with 91 yards passing. As long as Adrian Peterson keeps running like the best running back in the NFL then the Vikings will continue to be in football games. This doesn't address the main issue the Vikings have, which is the black hole that is the quarterback position. Christian Ponder has made Tim Tebow look like Peyton Manning over the last seven games. Ponder has 962 yards passing in those seven games which comes to robust 137 passing yards per game. Jay Cutler threw a pick-six that was the difference in the game, though the loss wasn't Cutler's fault entirely. I am sure he will get some of the blame though. This was one of those games were one team seemingly got outplayed, but still won the game. The Bears had to stop the run and they couldn't do it.
San Diego Chargers 34 Pittsburgh Steelers 24
Of course the Chargers beat the Steelers. It's amazing what happens when a team rushes the passer and protects their own quarterback. It's almost like getting pressure on the opposing offense and preventing pressure on your quarterback are positively correlated with winning football games. The Chargers also didn't turn the ball over and the Steelers gave up two sacks, but it could have been worse than that. What a bizarre Steelers team this is. I'm not sure I can remember a Steelers team that looks so bad in losing to teams they don't seem like they should lose to. Since I've been talking about him getting fired all year, I may as well say Norv Turner had his team ready to play. They went 12-22 on third down and Turner showed the offensive coordinating skills that make him such a great offensive coordinator. The Steelers couldn't run the ball and Antonio Brown and Mike Wallace both dropped passes that would have completed long passes. It's obvious to say, but it is funny how just one or two plays in a game can make the difference in a team winning a game. Over an entire season there may be 10 plays that made the difference in a team being 10-6 or 6-10. There's such a thin line between winning and losing. The Chargers' receivers caught the passes thrown to them and converted on third down. Therein lies one of the differences in winning and losing.
Philadelphia Eagles 23 Tampa Bay Buccaneers 21
Why wouldn't the Eagles go on the road and beat the Buccaneers? All this talk about Andrew Luck winning games he shouldn't win, well Nick Foles won a game he absolutely shouldn't have won for his first career NFL win. He threw for two touchdowns in the last four minutes of a road game, including the game-winning touchdown pass with no time left on the clock. A late fourth quarter win by a rookie quarterback on the road against a team with a better record? That's a game Foles shouldn't have won. The Buccaneers have lost their third straight game (as a bitter Panthers fan I want to point out it should be in four losses in a row) and they are getting closer and closer to being out of playoff contention the more they keep losing. As per their usual defensive work, the Buccaneers did a great job of shutting the Eagles run game down, but couldn't stop the passing game of the Eagles. The Eagles had 29 yards rushing on the ground compared to the Buccaneers 136 yards rushing. The old adage of winning football games by "running the ball and stopping the run" certainly didn't take a leaky secondary into account. What do you think Eagles fans? If the Eagles win out, can Andy Reid save his job?
Washington Redskins 31 Baltimore Ravens 28
How can I blame this loss on Joe Flacco? I'm not sure I can. Dammit! I showed everyone Andrew Luck's numbers earlier and here are Robert Griffin's numbers. He has a 66.4% completion percentage, an 18:4 TD/INT ratio, and a 104.2 quarterback rating. I realize these statistics aren't the end-all of how the Offensive Rookie of the Year should be determined, but Griffin has a better completion percentage by 12% while throwing 14 less interceptions. This doesn't even include his 748 yards rushing. I'm starting to see less and less how a case can be made for Luck or Wilson as Offensive Rookie of the Year. Of course Kirk Cousins came in the game and threw two complete passes on two attempts to get the win for the Redskins, so now the Redskins and offensive genius Mike Shanahan have two viable quarterbacks (which is what Redskins fans are telling themselves today). The Ravens defense didn't really do a great job of stopping Griffin through the air or stopping the Redskins on the ground either. Can't necessarily blame the Ravens' offense for this loss when the defense gets beaten up like they did. Maybe we can blame the Ravens' special teams for giving up a 64 yard punt return in overtime. It's easy to get in field goal range in overtime when a punt return gets you there without having to run an offensive play.
New York Jets 17 Jacksonville Jaguars 10
I know it isn't a great record, but for the gnashing of teeth and discussion about how bad the Jets are, they have still won 6 games this year. They are one game from a .500 record and don't play a team with a winning record the rest of the year. Mark Sanchez still didn't look great and Chad Henne further proved he isn't the answer at quarterback for the Jaguars. I wonder if Peter King still thinks the Jaguars need to go into 2013 with Henne as the starting quarterback? He probably would rather we forget about that little comment. The Jets came into this game and ran the ball all over the Jaguars defense for 166 yards and only committed one penalty for 15 yards during the game. The Jaguars can't afford to lose offensive playmakers and they didn't have Cecil Shorts III for this game and that led to Kevin Elliott and Jordan Shipley getting looks in the passing game. The Jaguars were 0-2 on red zone trips in this game, including Chad Henne throwing an interception close to the goal line and a fumble return for a touchdown by the Jaguars defense that was ruled not a fumble and therefore wasn't a touchdown either. You make your own luck, but often the bad luck a team has makes them as well.
Seattle Seahawks 58 Arizona Cardinals 0
The Cardinals had 154 total yards, four interceptions and four fumbles. I know it has nothing to do with why they lost this game, but doesn't it feel good Cardinals fans to see your team drafted Michael Floyd over...pretty much any other position of need they had? You can never have enough playmakers, unless you don't have a good offensive line or quarterback. The Seahawks had 493 total yards of offense and had two rushers go for 100 yards. Russell Wilson didn't even have to be clutch in this game. He just had to show up and hand the ball off. Remember back when Peter King had the Seahawks at 2-3 after losing their two starting corners for four games? The Seahawks are 2-0 since then. This is what happens when MMQB is written in a reactionary manner, Peter writes things he wishes he could take back if only someone would remind him of how wrong he may end up being. I know this sounds crazy, but the Cardinals really aren't this bad of a team. They need a good offensive line and a good quarterback. Sure, they aren't easy to find, but this is what happens when a professional football team has shitty quarterback play. But hey, they did make Larry Fitzgerald happy and draft a wide receiver to pair with him. When Fitzgerald demands a trade after this season maybe Cardinals management should remind him of that.
New York Giants 52 New Orleans Saints 27
David Wilson had 327 all-purpose yards in this game, because why not? Those people who were counting out the Giants after a few bad games during the middle of the season probably aren't vocal right now. Every team has highs and lows during a season and the Giants went into a low, got to work during their bye week and now are the offensively powerful team we had become used to again. Drew Brees threw for a lot of yardage, but otherwise didn't have his best game. The Saints still clearly have defensive problems and I am not sure if they even get a chance to re-sign Sean Payton as the head coach those problems will get fixed. Perhaps the Saints players are still getting used to the new defensive scheme, but at this point they shouldn't be giving up 52 points in a game. I guess we will see over the coming weeks if David Wilson's performance was something he can come close to duplicating on a semi-regular basis or if this was just a brief tease of what he can do, but hasn't, during his rookie season.
Green Bay Packers 27 Detroit Lions 20
Aaron Rodgers had a sort of "blah" game and the Packers still managed to beat the Lions thanks their defense returning a fumble for a touchdown and intercepting Matthew Stafford once. The Lions blew a 10 point lead for the third straight game. It's hard enough to get a lead, so the Lions blowing leads they get is a big reason why they are 4-9 and due to miss the playoffs this year. I know I talk about this too much, but remember how it was written by some media members that the Packers were "in trouble" after getting their ass kicked by the Giants? They Packers are now 9-4 and firmly in control of the NFC North. I don't get why the media seems to be so reactionary at times. The Packers found a running game and still managed to win with Aaron Rodgers just being pretty good. As long as the Packers offensive line holds up and the defense can continue to force turnovers I'm thinking the Packers are going to have a chance in the playoffs at some point to avenge the last two Giants losses.
Denver Broncos 26 Oakland Raiders 13
I don't know what the betting line on this game was, but it was a pretty good bet the Broncos would win this game, if not cover the spread. Even with Darren McFadden back the Raiders couldn't get anything going offensively. Of course McFadden did re-injure his ankle (what a shock, McFadden got injured...again...didn't see that coming) later in the game, so he wasn't able to finish the game. The Broncos were very good on offense. Knowshon Moreno made another cameo appearance and ran for 119 yards on 32 carries. Peyton Manning makes everyone around him better. The incompetent can become competent and good receivers are made into Pro Bowl receivers. I would like to see if Manning signed with the Raiders if he could make Darren McFadden healthy over his entire career. Now that would be a real miracle. Carson Palmer is accumulating some real good passing yards this year because the Raiders are coming from behind and haven't had much of a running game. So just remember that when he flirts with 4600 or 4700 yards passing. Next week for the Broncos is the Baltimore-Denver game, which has implications for homefield advantage in the playoffs. Not to be snide, but Dennis Allen's father died earlier this week so I thought God would at least use Bill Simmons "Tragedy Corollary" to help the Raiders win this game. I guess God hates the Raiders, which Raiders fans probably suspected. It's probably due to the Raiders loose affiliation with N.W.A. in the late 1980's. God doesn't like gangsta' rap. Right now it looks really hard for any team to beat the Broncos, but how many times did we say that about a Peyton Manning-led Indianapolis Colts team? Of course, those Colts teams may not have had a really good defense like this year's Broncos team has.
Carolina Panthers 30 Atlanta Falcons 20
Apparently the key to beating the Falcons is to get to a 23-0 lead and not letting them get in a position where they can have a great comeback. The Falcons offense struggled in the first half of the game and then came alive in the second half of the game as the Panthers defense desperately tried to help the Falcons win the game by giving Matt Ryan easy pass lanes and playing soft defense. Fortunately their own incompetence was defeated by brief dsiplays of competence in keeping the Falcons out of the end zone and forcing a turnover in the second half. The tone was set when the Panthers won their first coin toss of the season. Cam Newton was fantastic in this game and has thrown two interceptions over his last six games. I hope no one writes the Falcons off after this game because I doubt they will get behind 23-0 in any further games. Nearly every good team has a "what the hell" game and this is probably that game for the Falcons this season. The Falcons season is still decided by how they do in the playoffs and if they can't run the ball and the defense gives up more big plays to put the Falcons in a hole then they could have another short playoff run. I'm not counting the Falcons out. This was a wake-up call game.
San Francisco 49ers 27 Miami Dolphins 13
This 49ers defense is brutal to opposing offenses. They gave up 227 total yards to the Dolphins and the offense didn't commit any turnovers. If I am nitpicking, which I do best, I would say the Dolphins sacked Colin Kaepernick four times, so that is an issue. Of course, Kaepernick only threw five incomplete passes and had more total yards than the entire Dolphins team...so there's that. I was no by means a big Alex Smith fan and Kaepernick presents the 49ers offense with a higher ceiling, so maybe the quarterback switch was a good move for Harbaugh and the 49ers. I think the blueprint to beat the 49ers is still the same though. The opposing team has to stop the 49ers from running the ball and forcing them into tough passing situations. It's a lot easier said than done and the Dolphins couldn't do it with a pretty good defense. Ryan Tannehill seems to be taking a few steps backwards over the last few games. He's had four touchdowns and six interceptions since leaving the Jets game on October 28. I wouldn't call it a permanent step back and he doesn't have the best team around him, so I will make a few excuses for him until I am given a reason not to. Oh, and Aldon Smith has 19.5 sacks this year. I feel like there hasn't been much made of how well he has played this year. Maybe the mainstream media should focus more on his ability to sack the quarterback.
St. Louis Rams 15 Buffalo Bills 12
The Bills refused to win this game. They had two chances on the final drive to intercept Sam Bradford and stop him from scoring a touchdown on the game-winning drive, but they couldn't do it. I feel for Bills fans because George Wilson dropped both chances to intercept Bradford on that last drive. The Rams defensive line sacked Ryan Fitzpatrick five times in the game and Fitzpatrick did his usual throw an interception and throw a touchdown pass in the game. He didn't do much to lose the game and didn't do much to win the game. The Rams are closer to the 8-8-type record I fully expect from a Jeff Fisher-led team. I guess there are worse records for a team to have. Neither team ran the ball well, with both teams combining for 47 rushing attempts for 139 yards. The Rams were 2-2 in the red zone in this game and the Bills were 1-3. In a three point game that's pretty much the difference in who won or who lost. On a day when neither team had 300 yards of offense, when the Bills blow two out of three red zone chances and can't catch potential interceptions on the game-winning drive, it's not a surprise the Rams won the game. Sometimes the key to winning the game is just not screwing up as much as the other team.
Dallas Cowboys 20 Cincinnati Bengals 19
I don't yell at the television much, but I was yelling at the television at the end of this game. At the very end of this game the Cowboys were driving and had approximately 35 seconds left and were holding (I believe) two timeouts. Jason Garrett chose to run one play up the middle and then call timeout to set up a game-winning field goal with four seconds left. I thought, and still think, he should have tried to get the ball closer for the field goal, especially when holding two timeouts. The odds of DeMarco Murray fumbling are lower than the odds of Dan Bailey missing a 40 yard field goal. There seems to be an infatuation this year with head coaches running time down and not getting as much yardage as possible in order to set up a close game-winning field goal. The Cowboys did a great job focusing after the horrific accident on Saturday that killed Jerry Brown. I don't know how they did it. This game was somewhat sloppy with eight sacks and the Cowboys struggled to run the ball against a stout Bengals defense. I keep telling myself this Bengals team isn't any different from past Bengals teams, and they do have to play the Eagles-Steelers-Ravens to end the year, but their defense has played pretty well this year. Maybe they could win a playoff game.
Cleveland Browns 30 Kansas City Chiefs 7
Since certain Chiefs players thought Jovan Belcher had something to do with their win over the Panthers last (as opposed to the Panthers simply not being a very good team), I wonder if Chiefs players think Belcher caused them to get their ass kicked by the feisty Browns? Probably not. The dead, even the dead who are murderers, only help their teammates out from the grave. That's how the story usually goes at least. Phil Dawson sees the Browns having turned a corner.
"It's all kind of coming together," said 14-year veteran kicker Phil Dawson, who booted three field goals. "We're just doing all the little things right now. Guys are hungry to come back to work every day. There's some energy around here that I haven't felt. This is all good."
It seems like the Browns are starting to build something productive in Cleveland and they certainly have some good young offensive players to build the team around. They have been competitive in nearly every single game they have played this season. Now it's time for me to piss in their cereal and point out exactly who the Browns have beaten...so the Browns have beaten in order:
Cincinnati
San Diego
Pittsburgh (this was Roethlisberger-less seven turnovers Pittsburgh)
Oakland
Kansas City
It's not exactly a murderer's row of teams, but I guess they can't change their schedule. I see positive vibes, but am cautiously optimistic as usual. As for the Chiefs, Brady Quinn turned back into Brady Quinn and was sacked five times. 80 of the Chiefs 310 yards came on one run by Jamaal Charles as well. I still think if Romeo Crennel isn't fired, then Scott Pioli needs to be, and we all know new General Managers like to hire their own coach so they may as well fire Crennel too. The disaster in Kansas City was covered up for one week. Now the disaster is back.
Indianapolis Colts 27 Tennessee Titans 23
Adam Vinatieri is still winning games with his foot.
Andrew Luck is still winning games he's not supposed to.
That was the first line in the ESPN game recap. I don't get it. Why should Andrew Luck not have won a game against a 4-8 Titans team? Because the Colts were down 13 points at halftime? The Colts got the ball first in the second half, so they had plenty of time and opportunities to win this game even being down at halftime. Plus the Colts were at home, which always helps. I feel like this "Luck is clutch and winning games he shouldn't" narrative is going to start skidding out of control soon into being used anytime the Colts win a game. He's playing very well, but a home game against the Titans is a game he should win. I will also point, because I am an asshole, that Luck threw two interceptions to one touchdown and completed less than 50% of his passes for the second consecutive week. Luck is "clutch" but his numbers are ordinary (54.9% completion percentage 18:18 TD/INT ratio, 74.5 QB rating), which is why I think Robert Griffin should be Offensive Rookie of the Year. I'm not changing my mind about this until I do change my mind. The Titans appear to have a couple good wide receivers with Britt and Kendall Wright, so why can't Chris Johnson find running lanes? I'm guessing it is the banged-up offensive line that is the issue. I don't know either if Jake Locker is the answer at quarterback for the Titans or if their problems lie somewhere else.
Minnesota Vikings 21 Chicago Bears 14
Of course the Vikings beat the Bears and are now separated by one game in the NFC North. The Bears nearly doubled the offensive output of the Vikings in terms of total yards and Christian Ponder was pathetic as usual, but the Vikings won the game. Do you know why? Because Christian Ponder is a winner, dammit. A winner with 91 yards passing. As long as Adrian Peterson keeps running like the best running back in the NFL then the Vikings will continue to be in football games. This doesn't address the main issue the Vikings have, which is the black hole that is the quarterback position. Christian Ponder has made Tim Tebow look like Peyton Manning over the last seven games. Ponder has 962 yards passing in those seven games which comes to robust 137 passing yards per game. Jay Cutler threw a pick-six that was the difference in the game, though the loss wasn't Cutler's fault entirely. I am sure he will get some of the blame though. This was one of those games were one team seemingly got outplayed, but still won the game. The Bears had to stop the run and they couldn't do it.
San Diego Chargers 34 Pittsburgh Steelers 24
Of course the Chargers beat the Steelers. It's amazing what happens when a team rushes the passer and protects their own quarterback. It's almost like getting pressure on the opposing offense and preventing pressure on your quarterback are positively correlated with winning football games. The Chargers also didn't turn the ball over and the Steelers gave up two sacks, but it could have been worse than that. What a bizarre Steelers team this is. I'm not sure I can remember a Steelers team that looks so bad in losing to teams they don't seem like they should lose to. Since I've been talking about him getting fired all year, I may as well say Norv Turner had his team ready to play. They went 12-22 on third down and Turner showed the offensive coordinating skills that make him such a great offensive coordinator. The Steelers couldn't run the ball and Antonio Brown and Mike Wallace both dropped passes that would have completed long passes. It's obvious to say, but it is funny how just one or two plays in a game can make the difference in a team winning a game. Over an entire season there may be 10 plays that made the difference in a team being 10-6 or 6-10. There's such a thin line between winning and losing. The Chargers' receivers caught the passes thrown to them and converted on third down. Therein lies one of the differences in winning and losing.
Philadelphia Eagles 23 Tampa Bay Buccaneers 21
Why wouldn't the Eagles go on the road and beat the Buccaneers? All this talk about Andrew Luck winning games he shouldn't win, well Nick Foles won a game he absolutely shouldn't have won for his first career NFL win. He threw for two touchdowns in the last four minutes of a road game, including the game-winning touchdown pass with no time left on the clock. A late fourth quarter win by a rookie quarterback on the road against a team with a better record? That's a game Foles shouldn't have won. The Buccaneers have lost their third straight game (as a bitter Panthers fan I want to point out it should be in four losses in a row) and they are getting closer and closer to being out of playoff contention the more they keep losing. As per their usual defensive work, the Buccaneers did a great job of shutting the Eagles run game down, but couldn't stop the passing game of the Eagles. The Eagles had 29 yards rushing on the ground compared to the Buccaneers 136 yards rushing. The old adage of winning football games by "running the ball and stopping the run" certainly didn't take a leaky secondary into account. What do you think Eagles fans? If the Eagles win out, can Andy Reid save his job?
Washington Redskins 31 Baltimore Ravens 28
How can I blame this loss on Joe Flacco? I'm not sure I can. Dammit! I showed everyone Andrew Luck's numbers earlier and here are Robert Griffin's numbers. He has a 66.4% completion percentage, an 18:4 TD/INT ratio, and a 104.2 quarterback rating. I realize these statistics aren't the end-all of how the Offensive Rookie of the Year should be determined, but Griffin has a better completion percentage by 12% while throwing 14 less interceptions. This doesn't even include his 748 yards rushing. I'm starting to see less and less how a case can be made for Luck or Wilson as Offensive Rookie of the Year. Of course Kirk Cousins came in the game and threw two complete passes on two attempts to get the win for the Redskins, so now the Redskins and offensive genius Mike Shanahan have two viable quarterbacks (which is what Redskins fans are telling themselves today). The Ravens defense didn't really do a great job of stopping Griffin through the air or stopping the Redskins on the ground either. Can't necessarily blame the Ravens' offense for this loss when the defense gets beaten up like they did. Maybe we can blame the Ravens' special teams for giving up a 64 yard punt return in overtime. It's easy to get in field goal range in overtime when a punt return gets you there without having to run an offensive play.
New York Jets 17 Jacksonville Jaguars 10
I know it isn't a great record, but for the gnashing of teeth and discussion about how bad the Jets are, they have still won 6 games this year. They are one game from a .500 record and don't play a team with a winning record the rest of the year. Mark Sanchez still didn't look great and Chad Henne further proved he isn't the answer at quarterback for the Jaguars. I wonder if Peter King still thinks the Jaguars need to go into 2013 with Henne as the starting quarterback? He probably would rather we forget about that little comment. The Jets came into this game and ran the ball all over the Jaguars defense for 166 yards and only committed one penalty for 15 yards during the game. The Jaguars can't afford to lose offensive playmakers and they didn't have Cecil Shorts III for this game and that led to Kevin Elliott and Jordan Shipley getting looks in the passing game. The Jaguars were 0-2 on red zone trips in this game, including Chad Henne throwing an interception close to the goal line and a fumble return for a touchdown by the Jaguars defense that was ruled not a fumble and therefore wasn't a touchdown either. You make your own luck, but often the bad luck a team has makes them as well.
Seattle Seahawks 58 Arizona Cardinals 0
The Cardinals had 154 total yards, four interceptions and four fumbles. I know it has nothing to do with why they lost this game, but doesn't it feel good Cardinals fans to see your team drafted Michael Floyd over...pretty much any other position of need they had? You can never have enough playmakers, unless you don't have a good offensive line or quarterback. The Seahawks had 493 total yards of offense and had two rushers go for 100 yards. Russell Wilson didn't even have to be clutch in this game. He just had to show up and hand the ball off. Remember back when Peter King had the Seahawks at 2-3 after losing their two starting corners for four games? The Seahawks are 2-0 since then. This is what happens when MMQB is written in a reactionary manner, Peter writes things he wishes he could take back if only someone would remind him of how wrong he may end up being. I know this sounds crazy, but the Cardinals really aren't this bad of a team. They need a good offensive line and a good quarterback. Sure, they aren't easy to find, but this is what happens when a professional football team has shitty quarterback play. But hey, they did make Larry Fitzgerald happy and draft a wide receiver to pair with him. When Fitzgerald demands a trade after this season maybe Cardinals management should remind him of that.
New York Giants 52 New Orleans Saints 27
David Wilson had 327 all-purpose yards in this game, because why not? Those people who were counting out the Giants after a few bad games during the middle of the season probably aren't vocal right now. Every team has highs and lows during a season and the Giants went into a low, got to work during their bye week and now are the offensively powerful team we had become used to again. Drew Brees threw for a lot of yardage, but otherwise didn't have his best game. The Saints still clearly have defensive problems and I am not sure if they even get a chance to re-sign Sean Payton as the head coach those problems will get fixed. Perhaps the Saints players are still getting used to the new defensive scheme, but at this point they shouldn't be giving up 52 points in a game. I guess we will see over the coming weeks if David Wilson's performance was something he can come close to duplicating on a semi-regular basis or if this was just a brief tease of what he can do, but hasn't, during his rookie season.
Green Bay Packers 27 Detroit Lions 20
Aaron Rodgers had a sort of "blah" game and the Packers still managed to beat the Lions thanks their defense returning a fumble for a touchdown and intercepting Matthew Stafford once. The Lions blew a 10 point lead for the third straight game. It's hard enough to get a lead, so the Lions blowing leads they get is a big reason why they are 4-9 and due to miss the playoffs this year. I know I talk about this too much, but remember how it was written by some media members that the Packers were "in trouble" after getting their ass kicked by the Giants? They Packers are now 9-4 and firmly in control of the NFC North. I don't get why the media seems to be so reactionary at times. The Packers found a running game and still managed to win with Aaron Rodgers just being pretty good. As long as the Packers offensive line holds up and the defense can continue to force turnovers I'm thinking the Packers are going to have a chance in the playoffs at some point to avenge the last two Giants losses.
Saturday, December 8, 2012
3 comments Drew Sharp Just Wants to Watch the World Burn
The BCS is moving towards a four team playoff in 2014. I am in favor of a four team playoff, though I probably would prefer an eight team playoff more, but baby steps is all I can ask for at this point. I could survive if there was not a college football playoff at all, though I think that four team playoff setup is going to result in more a exciting college football bowl season. Drew Sharp is not a fan of the BCS four game playoff. It's not that he doesn't like the playoff, it is just that he likes to see chaos and mayhem. Some people just like to watch the world burn and it appears Drew Sharp is one of these people. He likes uncertainty and imperfection, especially in situations where perfection or certainty can be attained.
Drew wrote this column before Oregon, Alabama, and Kansas State lost and we knew the national title game would be Notre Dame v. Alabama, which makes his opinion on a bowl system even less persuasive in my mind. There is a one loss team in the BCS Championship Game and why can't Oregon, Florida or Kansas State have a chance to prove they can compete with Notre Dame or Alabama head-to-head?
Chaos gets a bad rap, especially in college football.
Probably because sports fans tend to prefer champions of a certain sport to be decided on the field in a set format that allows everyone to know who is the ultimate winner of that sports' season. Many sports fans like to know the winners and losers of a certain sport and knowing exactly who won and lost is appealing in order to determine who the best and worst teams are. Many sports fans like certainty, and while uncertainty is good for debate, I think a four game playoff will make college football bowl season more exciting by making it more certain.
Not to mention, a college football playoff isn't like the one game Wild Card playoff in MLB. This isn't a contrived setup in order to create more drama in the sport. There is a reason the NCAA Men's Basketball tournament is so exciting and looked forward to. That reason is college sports tend to work well within a playoff format. I have a feeling the four team playoff or (in my dreams) an eight game playoff would be as well-received, if not more well-received, then the NCAA Men's Basketball tournament...perhaps not immediately, but over a five year span.
Turmoil isn't toxic in this sport. If anything, it's a rejuvenating elixir.
Not really, unless you are one of those people who enjoys the stories and drama surrounding a game more than you enjoy the actual game or sporting event yourself (cough, cough Bill Simmons). Turmoil in itself isn't toxic in sports, but when determining the "winner" of a certain sport then turmoil can often be anything other than a rejuvenating elixir. In the case of college football, turmoil doesn't ruin the sport, but I think it takes a little bit away from the National Championship Game. There is always the idea or perception another team should have been given a shot to participate in the title game. No, the controversies over who should be in the National Championship game doesn't ruin college football, but if given the chance to see which team is the best in a playoff format then I see why it is an attractive option to do so.
It's a sport in which conviction becomes as important as competition. The argument is often more fun than the final score.
And there will still be arguments. If there was a 32 team playoff there would be arguments over which teams deserved to be in that playoff. The NCAA Tournament has 68 teams and the talking heads still discuss "snubs" and teams that don't deserve to be in the tournament. There were always be conviction and argument over the participants in the college football playoff. The only difference is the argument won't potentially (hopefully) be about an unbeaten team who gets no chance to prove they belong in the National Championship Game. The arguments now will be about which teams are #3 or #4 in the nation, as opposed to which teams are #1 or #2 in the nation.
And we've got a doozy of a quarrel coming in another three weeks -- potentially four unbeaten teams squeezing into two spots for the BCS championship game.
Actually there were five unbeaten teams when he wrote this (Louisville, Alabama, Ohio State, Oregon, Kansas State and Notre Dame), but since Drew Sharp loves uncertainty and chaos I am guessing he isn't considered with such trivial matters as "research" or "accuracy" when writing his columns.
Four unbeaten teams would be fine and chaotic. I would prefer with there being four (actually five) unbeaten teams we have a determination which of these teams is the best team that doesn't involve a computer or "Six Degrees of Team A" where we say "Team A lost to Team B, but beat Team C, who lost to Team B, but beat Team E in a blowout," to determine if Team A deserves a shot in the National Championship game. Under the four team BCS playoff all of these teams would be in (as long as they stayed unbeaten) and there wouldn't be a debate over which team got "screwed..." except there would be still be a debate. I guarantee if Louisville stayed unbeaten and Georgia only lost one game then there would be those arguing with conviction that Georgia deserves that BCS playoff spot. In fact, if Georgia had beaten another one loss team they would have probably ended up in the BCS title game against Notre Dame. Why can't Oregon or Florida get a shot since they only have one loss? The argument will never end.
A competition between the one loss teams would be a nice thing in my mind, as opposed to relying on BCS rankings to tell us Alabama will end up playing Notre Dame. I think a four team playoff of Alabama-Florida and Notre Dame-Oregon would have been fun to watch.
I'm rooting for chaos, but not for the reasons you might think.
Well I think it is mostly because you either (a) are a contrarian or (b) you simply don't like change in sports.
I'm not a playoff guy, never have been. I'm not for the same reason that I'm not an advocate for limitless, all-intrusive instant replay in all sports.
That's pretty much the reason I thought. You hate change in sports. All change in sports is bad change, and even though the BCS was a change to the old bowl format, that doesn't matter at all because the new change to the old change is your enemy. I would think an old school guy like Drew Sharp would want the best team decided on the field, not by a computer.
I find it interesting Drew Sharp throws instant replay into his discussion here. There is a big difference to me in a college football playoff and instant replay. Instant replay, at least to me, is about the integrity of the game and ensuring the human factor does not affect the outcome of a sporting event. Instant replay, at least to me, is about making sure sporting events are officiated in the most fair way possible to determine the winner of the matchup. The college football playoff is meant to ensure the best team in college football is decided on the field...or at least with teams worthy of a shot in the National Championship game having a chance to prove their worthiness.
There's something charming, dramatic and, yes, often enraging about imperfection.
In sports, I would guess that most people like definitive answers. Some people don't find it exciting to watch an entire season's worth of college football only to not know for sure which team is the best team in the country. There is nothing wrong with imperfection, but if college football can enliven the fan experience while also giving more definitive answers as to which team is the best team in college football, I think it is worth exploring.
Why mess with that?
Why must everything fit nicely?
Why must everything not fit nicely? Why must there be chaos?
I'm hoping that Alabama, Oregon, Kansas State and Notre Dame complete the regular season with unblemished records, each with a compelling argument for a berth in the national championship game. But two won't make it.
Or three won't make it. Or we could have it like last year where LSU was undefeated and Oklahoma State and Alabama had one loss, so Alabama naturally got a shot at the national title since they had lost previously to LSU. They had proven they couldn't beat LSU on their home field in November, but they got another shot at LSU because Oklahoma State lost to Iowa State, which apparently was an inexcusable loss.
Chaos is not great. Why shouldn't one loss Oregon, Florida or Kansas State get a shot to prove they can beat one loss Alabama and end up in the BCS Championship Game? Oregon loses to Top 10 BCS team and they aren't in the BCS Championship Game anymore, but Alabama loses to a comparatively worse BCS team and they move up into the BCS Championship Game because Oregon lost. Why not decide which of these two teams is superior on the field, as opposed to seeing what happened on the field and then speculate in the rankings on which team may be better?
And those two relegated to the outside will complain about the unfairness of their fate.
What if we lived in a world where these two teams with no losses weren't complaining about their fate, so there is a larger pool of "deserving teams," but some of the 1 or 2 loss teams left out of a 4 or 8 game playoff were complaining about the unfairness of their fate? Is that not preferable because there isn't enough chaos?
If it's Notre Dame, the Irish will argue that they shouldn't suffer a penalty because of the overall poor quality of the Big Ten this season.
Wow. This tells you all you need to know about Drew Sharp and his knowledge on the subject he is discussing. Notre Dame is an independent in football. They are not a Big 10 team in football. Again, I'm sure Drew Sharp is perfectly fine attempting to form an opinion on a subject he doesn't have a complete grasp on because that shows he is imperfect. Journalism is all about not doing research and making mistakes with your information, isn't it? Imperfection and chaos in sports journalism is good.
If it's Kansas State, the Wildcats will gripe they were wrongly victimized for not having an easily identifiable football brand.
Or they would complain they beat every team they played this year, but one team (just like Oregon/LSU/Alabama/Georgia) and still didn't get a shot to prove they were the best team in college football? This is an understandable gripe in my opinion.
If it's Oregon, the Ducks will tout conspiracy theories from fashion consultants who think their hideous uniform ensembles should be convicted of third-degree eye-slaughter.
Cue sad trombone.
But incessant whining is a big part of this sport's immense national popularity.
No, it really is not. A big part of this sport's immense popularity has to do with football being a very popular sport, tailgating is fun, and fans can cheer for their alma mater against other schools. College football is popular despite the incessant whining about which team gets snubbed and the popularity is most likely about the fact football is very, very popular.
The four-team playoff might seem like the perfect solution this season, but pushing college football closer to the NFL in how it crowns its champion will only hurt the sport long-term.
Be prepared now for a shaky bit of reasoning on the part of Drew Sharp. He will now tell us how making college football like the NFL will only hurt the sport in the long-term. I hate to break it to Drew, but the NFL doesn't have an straight playoff system, so it is still different from college football. The NFL divides its teams into NFC and AFC playoffs, which is different from picking the 12 best teams in the NFL and having a playoff, which is what college football is prepared to do with the four team playoff.
It'll spawn even more aggressive cheating among those teams that already don't care about the NCAA rulebook.
Two things:
1. Traditionally, when making a statement like this a writer would explain exactly what the hell he means by this statement. Drew Sharp hates tradition. He never explains what he means by this. I can't imagine what a four team playoff would do to spawn more aggressive cheating. In fact, shouldn't there be more aggressive cheating under the current bowl system since only two teams can make the National Championship Game? If there are only two spots in the title game and the purpose of this aggressive cheating is to ensure a team gets to participate in the title game, wouldn't there be more aggressive cheating when fewer spots are available?
2. BUT DREW, I THOUGHT YOU LIKED CHAOS!
This is chaos at its finest. Who is cheating, who isn't? Which teams are playing fair and which teams are breaking the NCAA rules? It's imperfection and chaos at it's finest.
It'll create an even wider gulf between the few national programs that consistently dominate and those lesser lights hopeful for that rare, special season when the spotlight hits them at the right angle.
Again, I don't see how this would be true. If anything a more open playoff system would allow teams like TCU, Boise State, and any other team with one loss or no losses to participate. If Drew Sharp believes the BCS conferences will collude to keep these type of mid-major conference teams out of the four team BCS playoff, then rest assured they are keeping them out of the BCS Championship Game under the current system as well.
Some think pollsters will give a 12-0 Notre Dame an edge over an unbeaten Oregon or Kansas State, if only for the sake of nostalgia and the possibility of an Alabama-Notre Dame championship game
And of course this system is preferable to a four team playoff because if the National Championship matchup can't be decided solely by nostalgia and the possibility of two high profile teams being in the game, then this is not a championship game that even needs to be played.
I would argue this sentence is the very reason a four team playoff is necessary. The four team playoff prevents two teams being put in the National Championship game based not on their resume during the season, but based on factors that have very little to do with each team's 2012 season performance.
They would be livid in Eugene, Ore., and Manhattan, Kan.
And that's your imperfect system at work. Sorry Kansas State and Oregon, you don't make us feel nostalgic nor is the profile of your program enough of a draw. Great season, too bad your participation in the BCS Championship game couldn't be decided based on that season's performance. Thanks and goodnight.
For some, disarray only strengthens the case for what's coming in 2014. No muss. No fuss. No fun. Everything would fit perfectly.
It's not about fitting perfectly, but is about many fans wanting to know which team is the best team in college football. It is about trying to improve the product and getting a definitive outcome on the college football season.
But college football, at its best, always was meant for imperfection.
College football will still be imperfect. There will be arguments over which team(s) are the 3rd or 4th best teams in the country. In a situation like this year where there are quite a few one loss teams, in a four team playoff, someone is getting left behind. Imperfection isn't going away, but simply moving from "Why didn't Team C get a chance to be in the national title game" to "We know Teams A, B, C got in the four game playoff, but why didn't Team E make it?" There is still imperfection, just with slightly less uncertainty at the top.
Drew wrote this column before Oregon, Alabama, and Kansas State lost and we knew the national title game would be Notre Dame v. Alabama, which makes his opinion on a bowl system even less persuasive in my mind. There is a one loss team in the BCS Championship Game and why can't Oregon, Florida or Kansas State have a chance to prove they can compete with Notre Dame or Alabama head-to-head?
Chaos gets a bad rap, especially in college football.
Probably because sports fans tend to prefer champions of a certain sport to be decided on the field in a set format that allows everyone to know who is the ultimate winner of that sports' season. Many sports fans like to know the winners and losers of a certain sport and knowing exactly who won and lost is appealing in order to determine who the best and worst teams are. Many sports fans like certainty, and while uncertainty is good for debate, I think a four game playoff will make college football bowl season more exciting by making it more certain.
Not to mention, a college football playoff isn't like the one game Wild Card playoff in MLB. This isn't a contrived setup in order to create more drama in the sport. There is a reason the NCAA Men's Basketball tournament is so exciting and looked forward to. That reason is college sports tend to work well within a playoff format. I have a feeling the four team playoff or (in my dreams) an eight game playoff would be as well-received, if not more well-received, then the NCAA Men's Basketball tournament...perhaps not immediately, but over a five year span.
Turmoil isn't toxic in this sport. If anything, it's a rejuvenating elixir.
Not really, unless you are one of those people who enjoys the stories and drama surrounding a game more than you enjoy the actual game or sporting event yourself (cough, cough Bill Simmons). Turmoil in itself isn't toxic in sports, but when determining the "winner" of a certain sport then turmoil can often be anything other than a rejuvenating elixir. In the case of college football, turmoil doesn't ruin the sport, but I think it takes a little bit away from the National Championship Game. There is always the idea or perception another team should have been given a shot to participate in the title game. No, the controversies over who should be in the National Championship game doesn't ruin college football, but if given the chance to see which team is the best in a playoff format then I see why it is an attractive option to do so.
It's a sport in which conviction becomes as important as competition. The argument is often more fun than the final score.
And there will still be arguments. If there was a 32 team playoff there would be arguments over which teams deserved to be in that playoff. The NCAA Tournament has 68 teams and the talking heads still discuss "snubs" and teams that don't deserve to be in the tournament. There were always be conviction and argument over the participants in the college football playoff. The only difference is the argument won't potentially (hopefully) be about an unbeaten team who gets no chance to prove they belong in the National Championship Game. The arguments now will be about which teams are #3 or #4 in the nation, as opposed to which teams are #1 or #2 in the nation.
And we've got a doozy of a quarrel coming in another three weeks -- potentially four unbeaten teams squeezing into two spots for the BCS championship game.
Actually there were five unbeaten teams when he wrote this (Louisville, Alabama, Ohio State, Oregon, Kansas State and Notre Dame), but since Drew Sharp loves uncertainty and chaos I am guessing he isn't considered with such trivial matters as "research" or "accuracy" when writing his columns.
Four unbeaten teams would be fine and chaotic. I would prefer with there being four (actually five) unbeaten teams we have a determination which of these teams is the best team that doesn't involve a computer or "Six Degrees of Team A" where we say "Team A lost to Team B, but beat Team C, who lost to Team B, but beat Team E in a blowout," to determine if Team A deserves a shot in the National Championship game. Under the four team BCS playoff all of these teams would be in (as long as they stayed unbeaten) and there wouldn't be a debate over which team got "screwed..." except there would be still be a debate. I guarantee if Louisville stayed unbeaten and Georgia only lost one game then there would be those arguing with conviction that Georgia deserves that BCS playoff spot. In fact, if Georgia had beaten another one loss team they would have probably ended up in the BCS title game against Notre Dame. Why can't Oregon or Florida get a shot since they only have one loss? The argument will never end.
A competition between the one loss teams would be a nice thing in my mind, as opposed to relying on BCS rankings to tell us Alabama will end up playing Notre Dame. I think a four team playoff of Alabama-Florida and Notre Dame-Oregon would have been fun to watch.
I'm rooting for chaos, but not for the reasons you might think.
Well I think it is mostly because you either (a) are a contrarian or (b) you simply don't like change in sports.
I'm not a playoff guy, never have been. I'm not for the same reason that I'm not an advocate for limitless, all-intrusive instant replay in all sports.
That's pretty much the reason I thought. You hate change in sports. All change in sports is bad change, and even though the BCS was a change to the old bowl format, that doesn't matter at all because the new change to the old change is your enemy. I would think an old school guy like Drew Sharp would want the best team decided on the field, not by a computer.
I find it interesting Drew Sharp throws instant replay into his discussion here. There is a big difference to me in a college football playoff and instant replay. Instant replay, at least to me, is about the integrity of the game and ensuring the human factor does not affect the outcome of a sporting event. Instant replay, at least to me, is about making sure sporting events are officiated in the most fair way possible to determine the winner of the matchup. The college football playoff is meant to ensure the best team in college football is decided on the field...or at least with teams worthy of a shot in the National Championship game having a chance to prove their worthiness.
There's something charming, dramatic and, yes, often enraging about imperfection.
In sports, I would guess that most people like definitive answers. Some people don't find it exciting to watch an entire season's worth of college football only to not know for sure which team is the best team in the country. There is nothing wrong with imperfection, but if college football can enliven the fan experience while also giving more definitive answers as to which team is the best team in college football, I think it is worth exploring.
Why mess with that?
Why must everything fit nicely?
Why must everything not fit nicely? Why must there be chaos?
I'm hoping that Alabama, Oregon, Kansas State and Notre Dame complete the regular season with unblemished records, each with a compelling argument for a berth in the national championship game. But two won't make it.
Or three won't make it. Or we could have it like last year where LSU was undefeated and Oklahoma State and Alabama had one loss, so Alabama naturally got a shot at the national title since they had lost previously to LSU. They had proven they couldn't beat LSU on their home field in November, but they got another shot at LSU because Oklahoma State lost to Iowa State, which apparently was an inexcusable loss.
Chaos is not great. Why shouldn't one loss Oregon, Florida or Kansas State get a shot to prove they can beat one loss Alabama and end up in the BCS Championship Game? Oregon loses to Top 10 BCS team and they aren't in the BCS Championship Game anymore, but Alabama loses to a comparatively worse BCS team and they move up into the BCS Championship Game because Oregon lost. Why not decide which of these two teams is superior on the field, as opposed to seeing what happened on the field and then speculate in the rankings on which team may be better?
And those two relegated to the outside will complain about the unfairness of their fate.
What if we lived in a world where these two teams with no losses weren't complaining about their fate, so there is a larger pool of "deserving teams," but some of the 1 or 2 loss teams left out of a 4 or 8 game playoff were complaining about the unfairness of their fate? Is that not preferable because there isn't enough chaos?
If it's Notre Dame, the Irish will argue that they shouldn't suffer a penalty because of the overall poor quality of the Big Ten this season.
Wow. This tells you all you need to know about Drew Sharp and his knowledge on the subject he is discussing. Notre Dame is an independent in football. They are not a Big 10 team in football. Again, I'm sure Drew Sharp is perfectly fine attempting to form an opinion on a subject he doesn't have a complete grasp on because that shows he is imperfect. Journalism is all about not doing research and making mistakes with your information, isn't it? Imperfection and chaos in sports journalism is good.
If it's Kansas State, the Wildcats will gripe they were wrongly victimized for not having an easily identifiable football brand.
Or they would complain they beat every team they played this year, but one team (just like Oregon/LSU/Alabama/Georgia) and still didn't get a shot to prove they were the best team in college football? This is an understandable gripe in my opinion.
If it's Oregon, the Ducks will tout conspiracy theories from fashion consultants who think their hideous uniform ensembles should be convicted of third-degree eye-slaughter.
Cue sad trombone.
But incessant whining is a big part of this sport's immense national popularity.
No, it really is not. A big part of this sport's immense popularity has to do with football being a very popular sport, tailgating is fun, and fans can cheer for their alma mater against other schools. College football is popular despite the incessant whining about which team gets snubbed and the popularity is most likely about the fact football is very, very popular.
The four-team playoff might seem like the perfect solution this season, but pushing college football closer to the NFL in how it crowns its champion will only hurt the sport long-term.
Be prepared now for a shaky bit of reasoning on the part of Drew Sharp. He will now tell us how making college football like the NFL will only hurt the sport in the long-term. I hate to break it to Drew, but the NFL doesn't have an straight playoff system, so it is still different from college football. The NFL divides its teams into NFC and AFC playoffs, which is different from picking the 12 best teams in the NFL and having a playoff, which is what college football is prepared to do with the four team playoff.
It'll spawn even more aggressive cheating among those teams that already don't care about the NCAA rulebook.
Two things:
1. Traditionally, when making a statement like this a writer would explain exactly what the hell he means by this statement. Drew Sharp hates tradition. He never explains what he means by this. I can't imagine what a four team playoff would do to spawn more aggressive cheating. In fact, shouldn't there be more aggressive cheating under the current bowl system since only two teams can make the National Championship Game? If there are only two spots in the title game and the purpose of this aggressive cheating is to ensure a team gets to participate in the title game, wouldn't there be more aggressive cheating when fewer spots are available?
2. BUT DREW, I THOUGHT YOU LIKED CHAOS!
This is chaos at its finest. Who is cheating, who isn't? Which teams are playing fair and which teams are breaking the NCAA rules? It's imperfection and chaos at it's finest.
It'll create an even wider gulf between the few national programs that consistently dominate and those lesser lights hopeful for that rare, special season when the spotlight hits them at the right angle.
Again, I don't see how this would be true. If anything a more open playoff system would allow teams like TCU, Boise State, and any other team with one loss or no losses to participate. If Drew Sharp believes the BCS conferences will collude to keep these type of mid-major conference teams out of the four team BCS playoff, then rest assured they are keeping them out of the BCS Championship Game under the current system as well.
Some think pollsters will give a 12-0 Notre Dame an edge over an unbeaten Oregon or Kansas State, if only for the sake of nostalgia and the possibility of an Alabama-Notre Dame championship game
And of course this system is preferable to a four team playoff because if the National Championship matchup can't be decided solely by nostalgia and the possibility of two high profile teams being in the game, then this is not a championship game that even needs to be played.
I would argue this sentence is the very reason a four team playoff is necessary. The four team playoff prevents two teams being put in the National Championship game based not on their resume during the season, but based on factors that have very little to do with each team's 2012 season performance.
They would be livid in Eugene, Ore., and Manhattan, Kan.
And that's your imperfect system at work. Sorry Kansas State and Oregon, you don't make us feel nostalgic nor is the profile of your program enough of a draw. Great season, too bad your participation in the BCS Championship game couldn't be decided based on that season's performance. Thanks and goodnight.
For some, disarray only strengthens the case for what's coming in 2014. No muss. No fuss. No fun. Everything would fit perfectly.
It's not about fitting perfectly, but is about many fans wanting to know which team is the best team in college football. It is about trying to improve the product and getting a definitive outcome on the college football season.
But college football, at its best, always was meant for imperfection.
College football will still be imperfect. There will be arguments over which team(s) are the 3rd or 4th best teams in the country. In a situation like this year where there are quite a few one loss teams, in a four team playoff, someone is getting left behind. Imperfection isn't going away, but simply moving from "Why didn't Team C get a chance to be in the national title game" to "We know Teams A, B, C got in the four game playoff, but why didn't Team E make it?" There is still imperfection, just with slightly less uncertainty at the top.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)