8 comments Gregg Easterbrook Not Only Writes Haikus, But He Writes Really Boring Haikus

Gregg Easterbrook's NFL preview is here. There will be no rejoicing from me, for this is the TMQ I dislike the most...which is something I say every single week. So Gregg will be making predictions for this upcoming season, not standing by the predictions and then mocking others for making bad predictions in a TMQ after the season is over. Gregg also talks about "creep," like he does every single week to my annoyance and talks again about concussions. The not-so-secret about TMQ is that the topics for discussion don't really change that much from year to year. It's the same crap every year that Gregg writes about, he just finds different methods by which to lie and mislead his readers when he talks about the NFL.

America's original all-haiku NFL season predictions! This is the 15th year, the crystal anniversary -- Bristol, I'd like a dilithium crystal, please.

How about giving your readers a cyanide tablet? That sounds better than reading haikus against my will, though it's not against my will since I obviously choose to do so.

First, one of those serious topics that comes before fun. There's progress at the intersection of sports and society -- especially, of football and society. In just the past five years, a bleak picture has improved. So -- is victory won?

Could there be a more vague question based on a vague set of information? Oh, "progress at the intersection of sports and society." Wow, since that spells it out for me then I say, "yes" victory has been won.

First the recent positive developments:

You will stop writing TMQ effective immediately?

Emphasis on reducing deliberate helmet-to-helmet contact at all levels of football -- pro, college, high school and youth.

Oh, concussions. Again. Let me guess, next week is the fifth bi-annual discussion of how NFL and college offenses are moving at such a fast pace? Gregg tends to harp on certain topics and this is the second straight year Gregg has discussed concussions in the TMQ before the season begins. Last year Gregg talked about concussions in his NFL haiku preview.

ESPN put its weight and brand behind adding graduation rates to the ranking of college teams.

Oh yes, the horseshit ESPN Grade that only takes Top-25 teams in the AP and Coach's Poll into account and then only compares the graduation rate of these Top-25 teams to each other. It's an essentially useless metric, but Gregg can't stop pounding his chest about it.

These are movements in the right direction. Your columnist has been pounding the table about athletic reform for years, and many times expressed cynicism regarding whether there would ever be positive change. Now there has been. In just the past five years, football has begun to emphasize risk reduction while high school and college athletics have made strides toward enlightened management.

TMQ/Gregg Easterbrook has also pounded the table that high school football programs may no longer exist in the future due to lawsuits resulting from concussions and other injuries while playing the sport. Obviously since this prediction is starting to look less and less likely, Gregg will gloss over the fact he has pointed this out as an actual concern. Still, many times Gregg has indicated school districts may get rid of football which would lead to a smaller pool of high school football players that enter college, thereby ruining the pool of talented players for the NFL to choose from. It's a doomsday scenario Gregg has floated that he will immediately forget he ever brought up once/if it is proven incorrect. If proven correct, his readers won't hear the end of it. The rule, like always, Gregg will mislead his readers and then ignore any statements he might have made that ended up being incorrect.

But we're not there yet: victory is far from won.

So there has been progress at the intersection of sports and society, but victory is not won? Besides, to indicate victory has been won before victory is actually won would be "victory creep" and we know Gregg won't stand for that.

Further reforms are needed. Among them:

(Bengoodfella falls asleep)

Construction and operating subsidies to the NFL must end. If Google demanded that taxpayers pay for its server farms, there would be outrage. Why isn't there outrage when the billionaires of the NFL demand public subsidies that they convert to private profit?

I don't know. Perhaps because fans enjoy the fact there is an NFL team close to their home and they are able to share in the enjoyment with their family and friends, which can't be said for Google? Maybe taxpayers and municipalities understand that having an NFL team in the area is a great boon to the city's economic base and brings money into the city? Sure, Google brings jobs, but I would imagine having Google in a city doesn't bring quite the revenue that eight NFL games a year (and maybe more in the playoffs and preseason) bring to a city during the football season.

Reform of NCAA athletics has barely begun. Failing to graduate football and men's basketball players, not failing to pay them, is the big defect of the NCAA structure -- since a bachelor's degree adds more to lifetime earning than college players would receive in pay-for-play proposals.

Yes, the NCAA should encourage schools to graduate these student-athletes, but I feel it is important to add that these student-athletes should want to graduate and earn a degree. A college can't force a player to go to class and graduate. As long as that student-athlete meets the criteria to play athletics at the school, the university can't force a student-athlete who is a junior and wants to enter the NFL (or a student-athlete who has used his four years of athletic eligibility) to graduate.

The NCAA and universities should do more, but it has to be some semblance of a two-way street.

As you settle onto the couch and fire up the flat-screen HD to watch this autumn's performances, you can feel better than you might have felt five years ago -- football is becoming moderately less abusive of young people's bodies.

Well, I feel more comfortable now that Gregg Easterbrook has assured me I can feel better about watching football. His approval is all I needed.

Now -- America's original all-haiku NFL season predictions.

I'm not sure what is more pathetic, that Gregg Easterbrook has done haikus for 15 years now, or Peter King is using Gregg's idea of using haikus to talk about football. I think both are equally pathetic. There are no winners.

Brady's last hurrah?
Modeling career beckons.
The New England Pats.
Forecast finish: 11-5

One of the things that irritates me about Gregg's haikus is how he ends each one with the name of the team he is discussing. If he insists on doing a haiku preview, at least don't half-ass the last line of each one. There are other ways to indicate which team the haiku refers to.

A smoking wreckage
of Jeff Ireland era.
Miami Dolphins.
Forecast finish: 6-10

When commenting on the smoking wreckage of the Jeff Ireland era, it's important to know Gregg predicted the Dolphins would win the AFC East last year.

Billionaire demands
corporate welfare for field.
Miami Dolphins.
Forecast finish: 12-4

I guess the wreckage wasn't so bad last year? Everyone gets predictions wrong, but I enjoy pointing out when Gregg is wrong due to the fact he takes great pride in pointing out whenever other NFL experts make predictions that turn out to be incorrect.

"I am the greatest!"
Ali boast seems mild to Jets.
The Jersey/B Jets.
Forecast finish: 6-10

I don't really understand why Gregg thinks the Jets seem to boast a lot. I feel like Gregg stopped paying attention to the Jets three years ago and is coasting on what the team thought of themselves then. Gregg seems to do this type of thing a lot. He prefers to coast on his assumptions rather than take the time to determine if his assumptions are true. He does this here with the Jets and ESPN allows him to get away with it. Also, 6-10 is the same record he picked for the Jets last year. 

Ferrari's new $1.6 million, 950-horsepower supercar is named LaFerrari. Calling it "the LaFerrari" would become "the The Ferrari."

Well, that's why a person wouldn't call it "the LaFerrari" and would simply call it "LaFerrari." No one says the word "the" has to be in front of the name for the car.

Warp speed does not help
if the shields (defense) no good.
The Philly Eagles.
Forecast finish: 10-6

By the way, Gregg had the Eagles at 6-10 last year, followed by him talking about how West Coast and warp speed football is taking over. It would have been nice if he had thought West Coast and warp speed football was taking over prior to the season beginning and mentioned it in regard to the Eagles, but Gregg is reactive and doesn't work that way.

New York Times Corrections On Fast Forward: During the past six months, the Paper of Record, according to its corrections page:

Confused Ho Chi Minh City, the former Saigon, with the United States;

This is a little misleading. Ho Chi Minh City wasn't confused with the United States. The words "United States" were used in the article instead of "Ho Chi Minh City." There was no confusion about where Ho Chi Minh City was located. If I accidentally type "Tom Kelly" instead of "Chip Kelly" then I am not confusing Chip Kelly with the former manager of the Minnesota Twins, I simply used the wrong name before writing "Kelly." I don't think Tom Kelly is Chip Kelly and the New York Times didn't think Ho Chi Minh City was in the United States.

Mixed up the difference between apes and monkeys. What was the subject of the article? Intelligence;

The article Gregg linked and didn't read was on the subject of intelligence in animals, not intelligence in humans. So Gregg has no point and is more interested in cutesy bullshit like this which allows him to make jokes rather than being upfront with his readers and hoping they don't click on the link provided. The newspaper did mix up apes and monkeys, but unless the writer of the article was an animal, it's not really ironic for the reason Gregg thinks it is.

"referred incorrectly to a visit by Peter the Great to the Netherlands." Did the 18th century call to complain?

Says the guy who takes the time to point this mistake out.

Confused Spider-Man with Iron Man;

Again, maybe it is semantics, but they didn't confuse Spider-Man and Iron Man, they confused which comic John Romita Jr. was first offered work. The confusion wasn't with Spider-Man and Iron Man, but with which comic Romita was first offered work. If I write that Peter King writes TMQ every week, then I am not confusing TMQ and MMQB, but am confusing which column Peter King writes. I think there is a difference.

I also think it is funny that Gregg takes the time to point out the mistakes of others who admit their mistakes, while he is a person who won't admit when he's made a mistake or intentionally misled his audience with deceptive writing tactics.

Admitted it was wrong to say that all elite male athletes have testosterone levels "in the female range";

I can't understand how Gregg is allowed to mislead his audience, but I'm beating a dead horse at this point. This was an op-ed column, so it wasn't an article written by a New York Times columnist. Also, the op-ed didn't say that all elite male athletes have testosterone levels "in the female range." The op-ed stated:

An Op-Ed article on April 12 about “sex testing” of athletes referred imprecisely to the overlap in testosterone levels among elite athletes of both sexes. While 16.5 percent of elite male athletes in one study had testosterone levels below the lower limit of the so-called male range, not all of them had levels within the female range.

The op-ed wasn't referring to "all" male athletes, but "all" male athletes in a specific study. Gregg is making it seem like "all" refers to the entire population of male athletes and not a subset of the male population that participated in this specific study. He's indicating the error references a larger population than it really does by leaving out important information.

Graying defense, no
run game. Still -- watch out for them.
The Pittsburgh Steelers.
Forecast finish: 8-8

Gregg predicted the Steelers would go 8-8 last year as well. I like how Gregg plays both sides on the Steelers. His stupid haiku says the Steelers have an old defense and no run game (which is negative obviously), then says "watch out for them" (positive) and then says they will go 8-8 and be 3rd in the AFC North (again, negative). So no matter how the season goes for the Steelers, Gregg is right. You would think if Gregg really thought the Steelers were a team to watch then he would have them being better than 8-8.

Johnny, LBJ,
GOP: Cleveland does rock.
The Browns (2.0).
Forecast finish: 7-9

I don't even understand the point of these haikus. If they were clever, then I see the idea of building a column around them, but this isn't clever. It's silly and pointless. The only way I would chuckle at any of these haikus is if I was eating lunch while reading them, got food lodged in my throat and had to chuckle slightly to clear my throat.

Bears: high-scoring team
with no defense. Yes, the Bears.
The Chicago Bears.
Forecast finish: 10-6

Gregg from last year...

Lovie, Urlacher
gone; 10 wins must be punished!
The Chicago Bears
Forecast finish: 6-10

Except it wasn't. The Bears went 8-8 and had success even when their starting quarterback got injured. Of course, Gregg would have created a "Lovie Curse" if the Bears had gone 6-10 last year, but because they did not, Gregg will wait until the Bears struggle and then desperately attempt to create a fake curse to explain how because Lovie Smith was fired the Bears aren't playing well. There's nothing I like about Gregg's writing.

AAU football:
Superstars but poor results.
The Detroit Lions.
Forecast finish: 6-10

I don't understand. How is "AAU football" correlate to poor results? Does Gregg seem to think AAU teams have bad results? Does Gregg know anything about AAU? Why would an AAU team have superstars and bad results?

The answers, of course, are "It doesn't," "He's making shit up," "He's writing out of his ass, so don't hold him to what he is writing," and "They wouldn't. Gregg wants to criticize others for a lack of accuracy, but doesn't care to turn that criticism on himself because he wants to write a light-hearted football column where he takes credit for those things he says that are right, but hides behind the idea his comments are just cutesy schtick when he gets facts wrong."

Two weeks ago, TMQ declared the Philadelphia 76ers have become "Zen masters" of the NBA art of getting rid of players in order to lose deliberately.

Apparently Sixers management remained nervous about the chance of an accidental victory, so proceeded a few days ago to trade away the team's leading scorer, Thad Young, for a draft choice and more backups. 

Well, Young was a free agent after this season and the Sixers were probably not going to get a chance to re-sign him. Rather than have him play well on a team going nowhere, they got some value for him. I wouldn't expect Gregg to understand any nuance involved with a sport he doesn't have the time to pay any attention to though. It seems the only time Gregg pays attention to the NBA is when he is pointing out NBA teams make dumb moves.

As noted by many readers, first Joe Maiz of Palmyra, New Jersey, Disney just released its 2014 holiday ornaments. Tom Delio of Virginia Beach, Virginia, reports, "On August 15, I saw pumpkin spice lattes advertised at the Joe Muggs coffee shop at the Virginia Beach Books-a-Million. Also, this past Friday the At Home store in Chesapeake, Virginia, in addition to having Halloween decorations on sale, had Thanksgiving and Christmas decorations on sale as well."

It doesn't make any sense to buy a Christmas ornament after Christmas does it? If a person is giving a Christmas ornament to someone else or buying a Christmas ornament for him/herself then it makes sense to do so before Christmas season begins so the ornament can be hung on the tree. I've explained how retail works so many times. It's just pure stupidity on the part of those who don't understand how retail stores try to drive sales. And yes, I would like pumpkin coffee or a pumpkin latte (if I drank them) prior to the month of November. It's not creep, it's just that if a coffee shop is going to create a pumpkin-flavored drink then it makes sense to try to sell as many of them as possible. Hence, the sale of pumpkin-flavored drinks begins early.

Fisher shown the door
after 16: downhill since.
Tennessee Titans.
Forecast finish: 7-9

Now we all know I think this is funny. Fisher was 8-8 and 6-10 during his last two seasons in Tennessee and in his 16 seasons with the team they were at or below .500 ten times. It seems like it was downhill for quite a few seasons while Fisher was with the Titans. Since Fisher left the Titans, they have gone 9-7, 6-10, and 7-9. So it sort of sounds like business as usual without Fisher, right? But of course I wouldn't expect Gregg to do research before popping off about how the Titans have gone downhill since Fisher left as their head coach. Research is for people who give a shit about whether what they say has accuracy or not.

NFC title
game seems very long ago.
Atlanta Falcons.
Forecast finish: 6-10

It was one NFL season ago. That's it. Gregg wrote a TMQ in August about how hard it is for an NFL team to repeat as Super Bowl champions, yet he acts surprised when it's hard for an NFL team to get back to the playoffs in back-to-back seasons. I just don't understand him at all.

Scoreboard was spinning
'til met the Bluish Men Group.
The Denver Broncos.
Forecast finish: 11-5

Gregg can't even preview NFL teams in haiku version without talking about last year more than he talks about the upcoming season.

Dude, let's hit the beach.
Whoa, we have a game today?
San Diego Bolts.
Forecast finish: 9-7

The worthlessness never ceases. Are there really readers of TMQ who think, "Man, I can't wait for the all-haiku NFL preview that is really a 2013 NFL season review in haiku form"? I can't believe there are.

This column has noted that newspapers long have had a touchy relationship with auto reviewing. Auto dealers are major advertisers, so reviewers tend to praise all marques. Reviewers tend to extol maximum horsepower, regardless of cost, environmental impact or the relationship between horsepower and road rage -- after all, they don't fuel or insure the cars they test-drive.

I'm glad someone is finally brave enough and willing to blow the lid off newspapers who give good reviews to car companies who buy advertising money. 

New Cognomen: Reader Damon Spear of Seattle argues, "If you're going to use Jersey/A, Jersey/B and City of Tampa, you should call Colin Kaepernick's team the Santa Clara 49ers." Mr. Data, make it so!

Oh god, please don't encourage Gregg to do this stupid re-naming of NFL teams to call them something other than their real name.

Second-best for two
straight years. This year may be best?
Santa Clara team.
Forecast finish: 12-4

Remember last year how Gregg threw himself off the 49ers bandwagon, never to acknowledge he did so when they made the NFC Championship Game? So I guess he's back on the bandwagon and isn't buying the Crabtree Curse anymore? I only ask because if the 49ers start 1-2 then Gregg will probably write another TMQ about how the read-option is dead and the 49ers should use a more traditional defense to win games. Then when the 49ers make the NFC Championship Game again he'll laud a few undrafted free agents on the team (on a team surrounded with draft picks taken in the first two rounds who have made an impact) and forget he ever was off the 49ers bandwagon.

Chose Bradford over
Griffin: Regrets begin now.
The St. Louis Rams.
Forecast finish: 4-12

Gregg from last year...

Left RG III on
the table; can they rebound?
The St. Louis Rams.
Forecast finish: 4-12

So Gregg pretty much copy and pasted his haiku from last year, left the same record for the Rams in that TMQ and changed a few words around? It seems that way. I don't need to underscore the stupidity of the all-haiku preview when Gregg's choice of topics in the haiku does it for me.

Four and a half years ago the media world went atwitter with the amazing story of a 13-year-old who already had a college football scholarship! Here is the ESPN report from 2010. The story was picked up by many news organizations, leading to the boy appearing with his father on ABC's "Good Morning America." Thirteen-year-old has college football scholarship -- amazing!

Signing a national letter of intent couldn't happen, in this boy's case, until February 2015. Mention that and the "amazing" story goes poof. So media accounts didn't mention that. Steve Clarkson, the hustler behind the phony story, sure didn't bring it up. More details of how this happened are in my 2013 book "The King of Sports."

Gregg has got to keep pushing his "The King of Sports" book hard, doesn't he?

The young quarterback, David Sills V, just started his senior year. You will not be surprised to learn the USC "commitment" evaporated. All parties to the 2010 charade -- Clarkson; former USC coach Lane Kiffin; Sills' father, a wealthy man who essentially founded a school to promote his son -- got what they wanted, which was national publicity.

For fear of seeming like I am defending the idiocy of a 13 year old verbally committing to a college, this story isn't memorable in that when there is a coaching change at a college football program many times the recruits who have given a verbal commitment will search to play college football at another university. So the story is unique and silly in that a 13 year old verbally committed to USC, but I'm mostly not surprised the commitment evaporated because USC had a change in head coaches. Sills had a good relationship with Kiffin, and if Gregg read the column he linked he would know this. Sills even visited the USC campus every spring. Again, I won't defend a 13 year old committing to a college, but when there is a head coaching change verbal commits often look to play college football elsewhere.

Brady said he agreed to less than maximum value to ensure the Flying Elvii have the cap space to retain other starters. (This view is not entirely selfless; being at juggernaut New England is good for Brady's endorsement income.) Last week the Patriots asked perennial Pro Bowl guard Logan Mankins to take a pay cut. When he declined, he was summarily traded to City of Tampa. There but by the grace of the football gods goes Brady!

The Patriots' signal-caller can't be happy he agreed to work for less than market value, only to find the team offloading a guy who stands between him and some Ticonderoga-class nose tackle.

Well, actually it is the Patriots center AND guards would often have to block a huge nose tackle trying to get at Tom Brady. It depends on where the nose tackle lines up, but it's not accurate to say Logan Mankins stood between Brady and a nose tackle, because the other guard and the center will also face off with the opposing team's nose tackle.

Candidates for the spot include a bevy of undrafted free agents -- Ryan Wendell, Dan Connolly, Jordan Devey and Josh Kline -- all of whom earn substantially less than Mankins.

Well, that's great then! Rather than have a highly-drafted, highly-paid glory boy like Logan Mankins blocking for Tom Brady, the Patriots have a large group of undrafted free agents who work hard and only care about the team blocking for Brady. This must be a dream for Gregg Easterbrook since he loves to tell his readers how undrafted free agents work harder and perform better than highly-drafted, highly-paid glory boys like Logan Mankins, a guy who loves money so much he refused to take a pay cut for the betterment of the team.

Yet, Gregg doesn't seem to sound like he thinks this is a positive development that Mankins is gone and undrafted free agents are blocking for Brady. Gee, I wonder why that is?

Gregg in the last paragraph of this week's all-haiku TMQ:

During the preseason, Tuesday Morning Quarterback uses "vanilla" items designed to confuse scouts from other sports columns. Starting next week as the football artificial universe resumes, TMQ will come at readers from all directions with obscure references, recondite analogies and unorthodox fact packages.

Gregg in the last paragraph of last year's all-haiku TMQ:

During the preseason, TMQ uses "vanilla" material designed to confuse scouts from other sports columns. Starting next week, I will come at readers from all directions with complex sentence structures, exotic joke packages and quick-snap items.

He could at least pretend like he puts some effort into TMQ and just doesn't plagiarize himself because he is too damn lazy to write a completely original final group of sentences to his all-haiku TMQ. It shouldn't shock anyone that Gregg puts no effort into writing new, original material. After all, he doesn't read the articles he links and he has no care to put effort into determining whether the assertions he makes in TMQ are factual or just shit he has made up based on his own incorrect assumptions.

I'll employ an up-tempo format in which each new item begins before the previous one ends.

How about you end TMQ and begin to write a new column on a completely new topic at a completely new website and then not tell anyone that you write at that new website? 

4 comments 2014 NFL Season Predictions

If I remember correctly, I have buried my NFL season predictions in a TMQ over the past couple of years. I think it's time for my stupidity to come to the forefront and so I am doing this by putting my 2014 NFL season predictions out for everyone to see/ignore. The NFL is a funny league to try and predict, because in August it doesn't make sense how a team could make the playoffs and sometimes the best teams the year before aren't good at all the following season. So here's my best shot:

AFC East

New England Patriots (13-3): It's pretty much sacrilegious to not put the Patriots as the winner of the AFC East. Though I still don't love their receivers (Brady makes them 25% better so it's probably silly to care), the defense looks much improved to me. Revis and Browner on separate sides with Jerod Mayo healthy equals another AFC East title. This is an easy pick because the AFC East that strong and the Patriots are still a strong team.

New York Jets (9-7): I desperately want to like another team in the AFC East. So I have chosen the Jets as the team I like, because even though they have major cornerback issues, they have a really good front seven. I haven't given up on Geno Smith, but at some point I can see Mike Vick getting a shot. There still aren't great offensive weapons, but out of Chris Johnson, Chris Ivory, and Bilal Powell they can run the ball enough to win some games. Right?

Miami Dolphins (5-11): I should be liking this team more. But the brutal middle-to-end of their schedule with Green Bay, Chicago, Denver, San Diego, Baltimore, and New England is talking me out of it. I never liked Tannehill, but I have to admit he has held up well with the pressure he's faced. I'm convinced the Dolphins have upgraded their offensive line and this is a very, very important year for Joe Philbin. Unlike Jeff Fisher, he doesn't have stability after this season. I see five sure losses in the middle of the schedule and it's not hard to find at least four more losses in there as well. Maybe I shouldn't base it on their schedule, but I don't see where more than 7-8 wins are coming from.

Buffalo Bills (4-12): The Bills' schedule doesn't seem so bad to me. Still, there are so many red flags that I can't ignore. A lot of how I feel about a team is based on that team's quarterback and Doug Marrone is publicly talking about what E.J. Manuel has to fix and is accusing him of trying to throw the ball to a point. Marrone is also arguing with a defensive player and that defensive player isn't backing down, and though I'm really liking the receivers they have given Manuel, I don't trust him at this point. If I didn't see such bad omens I think they would have a chance. I simply don't believe.

AFC North

Pittsburgh Steelers (11-5): This is a hard division to predict, but I have the Steelers winning the division because I think their defensive is going to improve from being middle-of-the-pack last year. The Steelers are semi-famous for having great linebackers and I think they have four really good ones this year. With an offensive line that seems somewhat improved as long as there aren't injuries on the line and Le'Veon Bell (boy, I was wrong about him it seems) carrying the football and Markus Wheaton improving, I think the Steelers make it back to the playoffs.

Baltimore Ravens (10-6): It's probably boring to rank the teams like this with it being Steelers and then Ravens, but I think the Steelers passing will improve with Steve Smith and Owen Daniels complementing Dennis Pitta. I liked the addition of C.J. Mosley and hopefully the offensive line will protect Joe Flacco. The Ravens have done a really good job of rebuilding the safety position and I think Ray Rice will have a bounceback season.

Cleveland Browns (6-10): Call me crazy, but I really like their defense. I believe in Justin Gilbert and Joe Haden as being a great corner combination. Gilbert will have chances to make plays as teams throw away from Haden. Offense is obviously the issue since the Browns have very few quality receivers, but I'm buying a Miles Austin comeback season and think the offensive line will be good enough to protect Hoyer/Manziel. It's a team on the rise (JUST LIKE THE RAMS!), but not this year.

Cincinnati Bengals (6-10): I don't believe the pass rush will be as strong this year and if the new defensive coordinator is planning on attacking a little more I think it's going to put more pressure on what I view as just a couple of decent guys at safety. While acknowledging I have the WR-empty Browns as 6-10 (and the Bengals do have better receivers than the Browns), I think teams are going to find more success this year blanketing A.J. Green and forcing Andy Dalton to find other receivers. It's an improved division and the Bengals are nearly the worst team in it.

AFC South

Indianapolis Colts (10-6): I struggled hard with this pick. I can't find a team in the AFC South that will challenge the Colts though. The Texans have no QB, the Jaguars have Chad Henne, and the Titans have Jake Locker who can't stay healthy. The Colts win by default. Andrew Luck has some nice weapons to work with at wide receiver, but it would be nice if the Colts gave him a running back. One concern is the defense. It gave up the 9th fewest points last year while giving up the 20th most yards. If those yards turn into points this year then 10 wins may be out of the question. Still, the Colts are the best team in the division.

Jacksonville Jaguars (8-8): I believe for some reason. I don't think Chad Henne is great and I haven't ever liked Blake Bortles, but the Jaguars are improved on offense and Gus Bradley knows how to build a defense. We'll see, but a lot of what I read prior to writing these sentences marvel at how Bradley is dedicated to turning this team into a winner. It's an easy division too. I think they get to 8 wins.

Houston Texans (6-10): The reality of this situation is the Texans don't need a great quarterback. They have Arian Foster, DeAndre Hopkins, and Andre Johnson, as well as a really stout defense. Giving this defense Jadeveon Clowney is almost unfair. Still, they need a competent quarterback to win games and I don't see one on the roster. And yes, I just had a Chad Henne-led team go 8-8. If they had a good quarterback I could see this team win the division. As it stands, I can't get behind Ryan Fitzpatrick. Unfortunately, I think Andre Johnson feels the same way.

Tennessee Titans (6-10): I like the offensive line and I like the top-3 receivers. Assuming Jake Locker stays healthy and improves his accuracy, the Titans could slip into the Wild Card conversation. Neither of those things I am willing to count on though. The front seven on defense has to get pressure on the quarterback because the secondary is a question mark in my mind. I'm interested to see how Ken Whisenhunt does with this team. The talent is there, but with questions at quarterback and a defense I don't completely believe in, I can't put them in the playoffs.

AFC West

Denver Broncos (14-2): The Broncos will lose to the Seahawks in Seattle and to San Diego once. Other than that, they are as good as they were on offense last year and the defense on paper looks to have improved. Of course Manning has to stay healthy for 14 wins to happen, which means his offensive line will have to protect him and he will have to know when to get rid of the football. I have no doubt the second part will happen. I think they are as good, if not better, than they were last year. Now if someone could just educate Wes Welker about what a "Molly" is then the Broncos would be a talented and slightly more informed team.

San Diego Chargers (11-5): This is another team I have read great things about regarding their defensive ability. Philip Rivers had a rejuvenating year because he actually had receivers to throw to and I think Ladarius Green starts to become a lesser version of Antonio Gates. They are going to score points and it's just a matter of the defense playing well. They are similar to the Colts in that they gave up the 11th fewest points last year and were 23rd in yards allowed. The difference is I think the Chargers have improved in the secondary, where they have added Jason Verrett and Brandon Flowers.

Kansas City Chiefs (6-10): Yeah, I'm probably a hater. I don't think the combination of Alex Smith with poor receivers is going to lead to success. The Chiefs defense is good, but they gave up a lot of yards last year and I don't see where they have improved. They'll still rush the passer well, but Alex Smith has an offensive line that hasn't improved, few receivers, and an offense that will revolve around Jamaal Charles. I can't see how Smith being a "winner" gets the Chiefs back to the playoffs.

Oakland Raiders (2-14): I don't necessarily dislike the Raiders idea of taking players who are older on shorter contracts, but I also don't think it's made the team better. This is another case of me hating the quarterback they have. I think even if the Raiders start Derek Carr he doesn't have enough to work with at the receiving position to warrant more than four wins. He beat out Schaub, who really does have Jake Delhomme disease. When is Peter King going to start ragging on Schaub for wasting $8 million of the Raiders money? The Raiders are going to lean on the running game to help their QB out, but Maurice Jones-Drew was the offense in Jacksonville for a few years as well and that didn't work out entirely. I don't hate the defensive built with a veteran front seven, but winning enough games to get to .500 relying on those guys? Good luck with that.

AFC Playoffs

Bye: Denver, New England

Wild Card: Pittsburgh over Baltimore, San Diego over Indianapolis
Divisional: Denver over San Diego, Pittsburgh over New England
Championship: Denver over Pittsburgh

NFC East

Philadelphia Eagles (12-4): Yes, I know. Very uninspired. They have improved in the offseason on offense, like they needed to do that, and I think they will be a step up from where they were defensively last year. I don't buy Chip Kelly as the coach full of wisdom like Peter King does, but he does know how to score points. Like usual, I'm a little nervous the Eagles ability to score quick will tire out the Eagles defense, but I'm not sure that's realistic. Also, Nick Foles can't have the same year this upcoming year he had in 2013 can he? 

New York Giants (9-7): I'm not buying the panic in New York about the Giants. I'm concerned, like most people, about Eli Manning's interceptions last year and the lack of protection he received from his offensive line, but he should have healthier receivers this year and I'm not really as concerned about the tight end position. The pass rush should be improved, but I'm still not certain they can win double digit games with games against Arizona, Philadelphia (twice), Atlanta, Indianapolis, Seattle, and San Francisco on their schedule.

Dallas Cowboys (6-10): I just have no idea who the Cowboys will be able to stop on defense. The front seven is pretty uninspiring due to injuries and if the onus is on Tony Romo to outscore other teams than he will be in the situation where he has to score 30 points just to keep the Cowboys in games. I may have said this last year, but this feels like the last year of the Jason Garrett era. The offensive line looks improved, but man, I don't believe this defense can help them get to .500.

Washington Redskins (5-11): Maybe Jay Gruden can trade for A.J. Green? I don't put much stock in preseason results, but the Redskins are a completely different team when Robert Griffin has to stand in the pocket and throw rather than play off his running ability. Griffin is healthy now, which is good, but he still has something to prove to me in terms of actually getting on the field and showing he's healthy. The defense isn't bad and I still can't figure out if DeAngelo Hall is a good corner or overrated. I think it will be a tough year in Washington and any type of quarterback controversy won't help.

NFC North

Green Bay Packers (10-6): This is another team whose success this season depends a lot on their defense. Aaron Rodgers will score points for the Packers, but will the defense improve to where they aren't a huge liability? Dom Capers is probably coaching for his job, so maybe that will inspire him and the defense. I remember even when the Packers won the Super Bowl, it was because the defense finally stepped up and started playing well. I don't know if the Packers defense will do that this year or not, but I think they are the best team in the NFC North.

Chicago Bears (8-8): It's weird for me to have questions about the Bears on defense, but I think that's where my big issue lies. They have improved the offensive line from two years so Jay Cutler still won't be on the run constantly. I worry about the Bears improving against the run from last season and Jared Allen is going to need to put up 11.5 sacks again if the Bears improve on my predicted record for them. They can score points, but in a division where it seems few teams have a good defense the first team to improve on that side of the ball wins. I don't think that team is Chicago this year.

Minnesota Vikings (6-10): I think they should be starting Teddy Bridgewater. I'm still convinced he is going to be the best QB in the 2014 draft. So, if he's not ready then I guess Matt Cassel has the job for a while. Putting Cassel in as the starter puts a cap on what I think the Vikings can achieve this year. We know what he is. I like Norv Turner as an offensive coordinator and this record more reflects what I perceive as a lack of ability at the quarterback position and depth at wide receiver than anything else. As a person who has seen Captain Munnerlyn play over the last five years, I'm very concerned about his ability to be a starter. He's a playmaker, but better used in a "joker" type of role. I'm interested to see how they utilize Anthony Barr too.

Detroit Lions (5-11): It's fairly well-known here that I am not a huge Jim Caldwell fan. In fact, I think as a head coach he is a failure and has a proven track record in college and the NFL that if he doesn't have Peyton Manning as his QB, then he doesn't have a good team. The Lions are the perfect team for Caldwell, because his teams can always score and the Lions will score. On paper, the Lions should have a great defensive line that takes pressure off their mediocre secondary, but it didn't work quite that way last year. Detroit was sixth in run defense, so they can stop the run, but it's the pass I'm worried about. This will be a Jim Caldwell team and I feel like I know what that means.

NFC South

New Orleans Saints (11-5): It's hard to pick against the Saints. It's not "hard" because I really don't like them, but it's hard because they look like a really good team on paper. We all know Brees is fantastic, but he's like every other NFL QB. Get pressure in his face and it bothers him. I see two questions on the Saints offensive line in Armstead and Lelito. I'm not yet convinced on them. They definitely have two great safeties, but the corners in Rob Ryan's blitz-heavy defense need to hold up. I question if they can in Year 2 of Ryan's defensive regime. Still, the Saints win the South because their schedule isn't hard (Cleveland, Minnesota, Dallas, Carolina twice, Detroit and Cincinnati) and they are a talented team.

Atlanta Falcons (10-6): I like the Falcons to bounce back this season. They have already lost their starting left tackle for the season, but Jake Matthews will get a chance to play over there. He played the spot in college, so it's just a matter of adjusting to the competition level of the NFL...that should be easy, right? I think the defense is where the Falcons will improve the most. Young guys like Worrilow, Alford, and Trufant will benefit from the playing time they received last year and I think what the Falcons may lose on the offensive line they will gain in their defense's improvement.

Tampa Bay Buccaneers (8-8): I'm glad Lovie Smith has gotten another chance in the NFL. He deserved it. Tell me if this is familiar. He has a team with a semi-question at quarterback, a good running back, great linebackers, potentially shaky offensive line play and a secondary who are going to try and be opportunistic in creating turnovers. This record may be low for them, but I do like the Falcons better. The Buccaneers are going to be very hard to stop in the red zone with Jackson, Evans, Doug Martin, and Seferian-Jenkins. I don't trust the pass rush to be strong enough and I don't know if I feel good about the offensive line to put them in the playoffs.

Carolina Panthers (5-11): They are shaping up to be a disaster. I feel like Riverboat Ron will go back to being conservative once he isn't coaching for his job and the offensive line is a disaster. The good lineman can't stay healthy or are rookies. Cam Newton is already injured before the season begins, when I thought he was going to get injured anyway playing behind a shaky offensive line. So while the receivers aren't much worse than last year, Newton's protection will be and he already has a rib injury. I like the direction they are headed, but unless the defense can win games for them, I don't see how they make the playoffs. I think this is a step back year before another step forward is taken.

NFC West

Seattle Seahawks (12-4): I think the Seahawks are going to win the NFC West again. They return the core of their team and I think they are even slightly better at the wide receiver and offensive line than they were last year. I still don't know exactly what I think about Russell Wilson, but he makes the right decisions and runs the Seahawks offense very effectively and efficiently. It's very important that Marshawn Lynch stay healthy, because Michael and Turbin are fairly unproven behind him. Still, they are the best team in the NFC until they prove to me otherwise.

Arizona Cardinals (10-6): The best thing the Cardinals can do this year is get Andre Ellington more carries. I think the Cardinals are going to make the playoffs this season with a very good defense (1st against the rush, 14th against the pass last year) and Carson Palmer having some really good receivers to work with in Arians' offensive system. My standard, "How is the offensive line doing" question remains, but it's an improved line now that Jonathan Cooper is back (assuming his hurt toe doesn't hold him back and he isn't as disappointing as Arians finds him to be) and they still have one of the best cornerbacks in the game.

San Francisco 49ers (7-9): I'm pretty sure I had the 49ers third in the NFC West last year too and was wrong about it. I promise I'm not going to put them there until I'm right. On paper, this team looks really good and they have proven me wrong before. It's a team built around running the football and playing good defense. Neither unit has looked great in the preseason (I know, I know...don't put much stock in the preseason) and at some point Frank Gore is going to run down, right? The schedule is difficult with them playing at the Giants, Denver, New Orleans, and Seattle. That doesn't include games against Seattle at home, as well as games against Chicago, Philadelphia and San Diego. That's tough. I think it results in a step-back season.

St. Louis Rams (5-11): I hear Sam Bradford got injured...that true? I almost put the Rams at 8-8 just for fun, but I get the feeling they won't get there. It's frustrating for me and I this is a team with a lot of talent (A TEAM ON THE RISE!), but I'm not ready to bet on Shaun Hill getting them to the playoffs. The defensive talent in the front seven is frightening and my excitement for the defense is somewhat tempered by the secondary. Of course with a great pass rush, the secondary looks better. Lack of stability at quarterback, a tough division and games against Philadelphia, Denver, and San Diego don't make this a winning season.

NFC Playoffs

Bye: Seattle, Philadelphia

Wild Card: New Orleans over Arizona, Atlanta over Green Bay
Divisional: Seattle over Atlanta, New Orleans over Philadelphia
Championship: New Orleans over Seattle

Super Bowl: Denver over New Orleans

12 comments MMQB Review: Roger Goodell's Mitigating Factors in Regard to Domestic Violence Edition

Peter King discussed the injury to Sam Bradford last week in MMQB, though he didn't ask the big question that I had, which was "How come the Rams didn't do better in bringing in a backup/competition for a quarterback they weren't even sure was the future of the franchise and is always injured?" Peter told us that history says the Seahawks won't repeat and complained about the price of a carry-on bag with Frontier Airlines as he vowed to keep himself to three lattes at Starbucks per week, which apparently don't cost him any money. This week Peter talks about domestic violence and how Roger Goodell's new policy (after Ray Rice got two games of course) will impact future NFL players in the same position as Rice, how Roger Goodell doesn't understand why everyone was mad at him, has more Chip Kelly coach-speak to share as if it were wisdom, and gets to the bottom on why Michael Sam was cut. Apparently "it was a football decision" is not enough of an explanation for Peter.

I was planning to address the Roger Goodell about-face on domestic violence later in the column, but the Ray McDonald arrest at 3 a.m. Sunday in San Jose, and the 49ers defensive tackle being charged with felony domestic violence, changed all that.

There is no time to talk later about Roger Goodell's about-face on domestic violence because an NFL player got arrested for domestic violence and this must be discussed immediately. After all, I'm guessing 25% of loyal MMQB readers just quit reading after the first two pages once the quotes, tweets and thoughts from Peter start showing up. If Peter buries the about-face from Goodell too far back then fewer people will read it.

So this bit of inside-MMQB for those waiting for my piece on Green Bay GM Ted Thompson: We’re going to run it Wednesday here at The MMQB, when we can give it proper treatment the day before the season. 

Because Peter wouldn't want any actual NFL information to take the place of any really interesting "Quotes of the Week," "Tweets of the Week" or the entire page dedicated to Peter's own thoughts. Obviously, MMQB is mostly about Peter King and not about relevant information on the NFL from an NFL insider. The information on Ted Thompson can wait, but Peter's interview with himself about Alex Smith's contract extension, another half page of Peter's thoughts about NFL cuts, and whether Logan Mankins is mad at Bill Belichick CAN NOT wait. That is all very time-sensitive information.

San Jose police responded to a complaint early Sunday morning involving San Francisco defensive tackle Ray McDonald and a woman that NBC Bay Area reported is pregnant. She had bruises on her neck and arms, the Sacramento Bee reported, and McDonald was jailed on suspicion of felony domestic violence charges.

“Felony domestic violence is a serious charge in any jurisdiction,” said Kim Gandy, president and CEO of the National Network to End Domestic Violence, in a phone interview Sunday afternoon, hearing the news for the first time.

Gandy was one of six national authorities on domestic violence who helped Goodell shape his decisive new policy, first in a lengthy phone call in mid-August and then in a meeting at the league offices in Manhattan on Aug. 21.

I like how Roger Goodell needs to call on six authorities on domestic violence in order to shape a new policy. Goodell needs no authorities when it comes to shaping policies on NFL players testing positive for drugs, getting a DUI or nearly any other offense that will result in an NFL player being suspended. Yet, domestic violence vexes the shit out of Roger Goodell that he needs six other people to tell him how to shape his policy. Goodell does have an agreed-upon drug policy to use when it comes to suspending players who violate the policy, but he didn't need help suspending Ben Roethlisberger or Pacman Jones for the season when they ran afoul of the law. It's just funny to me that he can't seem to appropriately punish NFL players who are accused/convicted of domestic violence without a little help. I guess there is no nuance in these other situations that result in an NFL player being suspended by Goodell.

The MMQB has talked to three of the outside experts called on by Goodell, and all were encouraged by the tougher policy on domestic violence laid out by Goodell: a six-game ban for a first offense (though with some wiggle room for “mitigating factors”), 

Roger says that there are mitigating factors. In fact, one of the mitigating factors in the Ray Rice case was "Did the bitch deserve it?" The answer to Goodell in this situation was "no, but kind of" while another mitigating factor was "Is the bitch cool with it now?" and the answer was "yes," so Goodell only gave Rice a two game suspension. Keep your girl in check, don't let her narc too hard, and you are cool with Goodell. There are other mitigating factors being considered by Goodell like,

-Was there a weapon involved? If so, the mitigating factor is "Did she deserve to be hit by the weapon based on her behavior?" Also, was the use of the weapon to discipline the woman for her behavior or just out of hatred for no reason? There is NEVER an excuse for hitting a woman without a good reason. Ever. Roger Goodell feels strongly about this. But if the woman wasn't acting right and causing a scene to embarrass the player in front of his boys, weapons without a blade or any other sharp edge (such as a broom, a baseball bat no longer than 30 inches, the handle end of a rake, and a belt) are appropriate to use and can be considered as fine with a mitigating circumstance involved. No weapons with a sharp end should ever be used, unless there is a mitigating factor, such as the woman just won't stop getting on the player's nerves. If the player has to ask more than twice for the woman to get off his nerves, then one strike (and one strike only, Roger Goodell feels strongly about this) with a sharp object is allowed, but there HAS to be a mitigating circumstance of the woman getting on the players nerves after being asked twice to stop.

-If the player's only act of domestic violence was hitting his significant/insignificant other, how big was the bruise's diameter? The penalties for bruise diameter goes like this...0 games for a bruise or bruises less than an inch in diameter, 2 games for a bruise or bruises between 1-3 inches in diameter, 6 games for a bruise or bruises bigger than 3 inches in diameter, and a year ban for a bruise or bruises larger than 5 inches in diameter...though if there is a mitigating factor, such as the bitch being cool with it or she was acting a fool and didn't know her place, then Goodell will lower the penalty down 1 inch for every mitigating factor.

-Did the player marry or continue a relationship with the person accusing him of domestic violence? If so, that player has kept his girl in check and should be rewarded for doing so. This is a mitigating circumstance.

-Is the girl a known trifler? Does she has a history of being a trifling-ass who always gets jealous and tries to cause problems where there are no problems, so the only solution is to put her back in her right place? Goodell will mitigate the suspension based on the woman being a known trifling-ass, but as long as the player can provide three witnesses attesting to the trifling nature of the woman.

and a year-to-lifetime ban for a repeat offender.

Unless there is a mitigating factor of course.

“The [domestic violence] policy is going to be tested quickly,” said Gandy, a veteran of the fight to end domestic abuse. “I think it is probably a good thing for a policy to be tested quickly, to see if the policy works the way it was meant to work. I am very sorry to hear this news, but it is a reminder how frequent and common domestic violence in this country is, unfortunately. I believe the commissioner will say, ‘This is our policy and we are going to stand behind it and implement it fairly.’

I'm not against a written policy, but I think it is hilarious that Roger Goodell can't trust himself to handle domestic violence punishments for NFL players without having a policy to tell him what to do. I sort of thought he was clueless after he punished Ray Rice for two games, but I know he's clueless now.

But the news about McDonald, a valuable starter on the San Francisco defensive front seven already coping with the nine-game suspension to its best pass-rusher, Aldon Smith, and knowing the team could be without rehabbing star linebacker NaVorro Bowman until midseason, could not come at a worse time. Being in trouble with the law is one thing. But coach Jim Harbaugh has been open with his players about seeing red over domestic violence.

This is as opposed to Bill Belichick, who doesn't care who his players hit, as long as they are being aggressive and show up on time for practice everyday. Belichick's policy about domestic violence is even less stringent than Goodell's "Is the bitch cool with it?" policy in the Ray Rice situation. Thank God Jim Harbaugh is tough on domestic violence. I wish other NFL coaches would follow suit.

If McDonald did indeed lay his hands on a woman in the tenor of these times, he has just made the biggest mistake of his career—and at just about the worst time possible.

Right, Peter. There is a time and place to hit a woman. When everyone is focused on the NFL not getting tough on players who hit women is not that time. Perhaps try to hit a woman during Super Bowl week or in another year or two. Just not now. It's simply bad domestic violence strategy.

Five days after the Rice decision, CNN led its morning newscast with a panel ripping the league over the light sentence. Five days. In his letter to owners last week, Goodell recognized the outcry, and the league’s role in society that he underestimated.

Goodell wrote: “The public response reinforced my belief that the NFL is held to a higher standard, and properly so.

But if your belief is that the NFL is held to a higher standard, how come you didn't uphold that belief when suspending Rice two games?

This would be an appropriate question to Goodell that he would probably not answer.

Much of the criticism stemmed from a fundamental recognition that the NFL is a leader, that we do stand for important values, and that we can project those values in ways that have a positive impact beyond professional football. We embrace this role and the responsibility that comes with it.”

Now. The NFL embraces it now. It took a public outcry and six experts on domestic violence to convince Goodell of the exact role and responsibility the NFL had, but this role has been embraced. Just don't criticize the officials. Roger Goodell knows how to embrace his role without any outside assistance in making sure the officials aren't criticized.

“When we talked,” said Gandy, “he said, basically, that he wanted to educate himself. He was genuine in wanting to understand the causes and wanting to know the best role for the league. At one point, we were talking about law enforcement, and he said to me, ‘Why isn’t everyone angry at the judge and the prosecutor in the Rice case? We actually did something, rather than nothing.’

Roger Goodell doesn't get it, just in case it wasn't clear. Yes Roger, you are being victimized by a mean society that holds a multi-billion dollar organization who thrive on fan interest and money to a higher standard than faceless and nameless prosecutors that have their salaries paid by citizen tax money. Who would expect the NFL, an organization that pretty much thinks it has the ability to do whatever the hell it wants to do, to be held to a higher standard than the court system that is a slave to the laws of the nation? Poor Roger Goodell.

One of the late additions to the letter Goodell sent to owners was trying to leave the league some flexibility on a hard-and-fast six-game ban for first offenses. Aggravating factors—assaulting a pregnant woman, for instance—could make the sanction harsher. But there also is no guarantee that the ban could be as long as six games.

But what if the player doesn't know the woman is pregnant? How can an NFL player be suspended longer for assaulting a pregnant woman if he didn't know that woman was pregnant? It's like Roger Goodell expects NFL players to do a total background check and physical on these women before they get down to the business of assaulting that woman. It's so inconvenient.

Read the letter: “Effective immediately, violations of the Personal Conduct Policy regarding assault, battery, domestic violence or sexual assault that involve physical force will be subject to a suspension without pay of six games for a first offense, with consideration given to mitigating factors, as well as a longer suspension when circumstances warrant. Among the circumstances that would merit a more severe penalty would be a prior incident before joining the NFL, or violence involving a weapon, choking, repeated striking, or when the act is committed against a pregnant woman or in the presence of a child.”

Notice how the letter about the new policy doesn't explain the mitigating factors, because they would seem pretty insensitive. That should be a hint, no? The NFL probably has no idea what a mitigating factor would be, but Roger Goodell does know he will sound like an asshole if he even tried to list one in an official NFL letter.

One size doesn’t fit all, and one size rarely fits all,” said Gandy. “We recognize there are greatly different levels of violence.”

Plus, Roger Goodell prefers it when a player can keep his girl in check and makes a commitment to marrying or continuing to date the woman that player assaulted. After all, how bad could it be if the woman stays with the person who assaulted her?

Kansas City GM John Dorsey did the right thing Sunday evening, putting the finishing touches on a four-year contract extension for Alex Smith that will pay him, on average, $15.1 million over the next five years.

Yes, "the right thing" is what Dorsey did. Poor Alex Smith was barely getting paid for his performance over the past few years.

The way I figure it, Smith is now the 11^th-highest-paid quarterback in the NFL in terms of average salary in the existing contract.

That sounds about right. (snickers to himself)

So let’s answer the questions many of you have this morning about the deal and about the player.

Peter is about to pose questions to himself that "many of us" have and then answer these questions. Please remember, in an in-depth discussion about Ted Thompson was left out of MMQB so Peter could answer questions he posed to himself about Alex Smith. 

Q: Why did the Chiefs pay Smith now instead of waiting for him to get to the market after this season?

But do you want to enter a year-to-year deal with the leader of your team, telling him: We don’t really trust you, and we’re going to pay Dwayne Bowe and other key guys to our future but not you? Not a good business plan, and not a good business plan to risk Smith having a very good year and potentially hitting restricted free agency next March at age 30.

While I understand the implication of paying other players around Smith, is it really such a risk that Smith have a very good year and getting the chance to be a restricted free agent? If he has a really good year then he prices himself out of the Chiefs market, which isn't very good, but if Smith plays well then perhaps he would deserve the money he'll be offered for his performance. Maybe I'm focused too much on this being Alex Smith.

Q: Smith isn’t worth $15 million a year. Never has been. Why cave to him and give him that money?

A: Look at the market. Flacco got paid $5 million per year more than 13 months ago. Matt Ryan got paid $5.7-million per year more over a year ago too. Rivers signed his deal four years ago and his deal still slightly exceeds Smith’s.

But Alex Smith is not Matt Ryan and he is not Philip Rivers. But hey, it's the Chiefs money, so what should I care?

Folks, it’s okay to change your minds about a player. Alex Smith of 2014 isn’t Alex Smith of 2007. He’s a pretty good player. Not the best quarterback in football. Not in the top five, or the top 10 probably...He’s going to complete 64 percent or so of his throws, he’s going to limit mistakes, and he’s going to give Kansas City a good chance to win most Sundays.

Yeah, we'll see. I'm just glad the piece on Ted Thompson got bumped so Peter could ask himself questions he would answer about Alex Smith.

Most notable about cutdown weekend, when 704 men lost their jobs and/or were assigned to various practice squads: There were no shocks. A couple of surprises, but can you honestly say it was a stunner to see Michael Sam cut? Champ Bailey? Nate Burleson? No. Nothing really strange happened, but here’s what caught my eye:

Hey look, more of Peter King's personal thoughts in MMQB. It seems his readers can't get enough of what Peter thinks he thinks, or in this case, what Peter knows he thinks.

1. Found it interesting that the average age of the Denver Broncos’ final 53 is 25.8. I would have guessed 28.8.

I thought it was 27.9.

3. Let history show it was a player with the exact dimension of the 6-0, 193-pound Champ Bailey—6-0, 193-pound free-agent Brian Dixon of Northwest Missouri State—who essentially took Bailey’s job with the Saints. Dixon does have one edge: He’s healthier (Bailey had some plantar fasciitis in training camp), and he’s 12 years younger.

OTHER THAN BEING 12 YEARS YOUNGER AND NOT A HALL OF FAME CORNERBACK, THESE ARE ESSENTIALLY THE SAME TWO PLAYERS!

4. Green Bay never keeps three quarterbacks, but Scott Tolzien and Matt Flynn played well in the preseason and forced GM Ted Thompson’s hand. With Aaron Rodgers missing seven games last year, and with Thompson knowing Tolzien or Flynn likely would have been claimed elsewhere by a team needing a solid number two (or three), the Packers did the right thing and kept Rodgers, Tolzien and Flynn active.

Do you like how "the right thing" translates in MMQB to an NFL team doing what Peter King thinks that team should have done?

5. Fallout from the 2012 draft begins. Check out this ugly 32-pick span between No. 22 and 53:

53: Cincinnati—Devon Still was cut Saturday by the Bengals. Another wasted pick.

It's kind of cruel to call Devon Still a wasted pick when his daughter is fighting pediatric cancer.

Nothing like kicking a guy while he is down. Peter did apologize on Twitter...

Apologies, Devon Still. I called him "wasted pick" after Bengals cut him. Unaware of real-life situation, w/daughter battling cancer. Sorry.
— Peter King (@SI_PeterKing) September 2, 2014

First off, I find it hard to believe Peter was unaware of Still's situation with his daughter. I knew about it and I don't follow the Bengals that closely and even visited their training camp.

I realize Peter is too busy writing about Michael Sam, Johnny Manziel, coffee, how frustrating bad coffee can be and what he thinks about the Red Sox this season, but I find it hard to believe Peter didn't know about the situation with Devon Still's daughter. I think this goes to show how Peter is sometimes too concerned with things outside of the NFL, which is the sport he is paid to cover for a web site that covers the sport of football exclusively.

Second, this isn't out of character for Peter. He called Sean Taylor a bust not once, not twice, but three times in MMQB and his mailbags. The reason Taylor was a bust is because he was shot and killed, so he didn't exactly have a chance to live up to his draft status. So even if Peter knew about the situation around Still's daughter, based on how he referred to Sean Taylor repeatedly, I'm not sure he really is sorry for calling Still a "wasted pick."


9. Two of the great wheelers/dealers worked out a trade Saturday: Indy GM Ryan Grigson sending street free-agent cornerback Marcus Burley to Seattle GM John Schneider for a 2015 sixth-round pick.

Ryan Grigson is a wheeler/dealer, but I'm pretty sure there is still a question about the "great" part of the equation.

13. I have never seen a more misleading 5-0 preseason than the one the New York Giants just had. Eli Manning completed 49 percent of his throws, Odell Beckham (hamstring) wasn’t healthy all summer, and the passing game looked just as sickly as Beckham. Yikes. Giants have to win a scoring contest with Detroit a week from tonight. I don’t like their chances.

You and Mike Lupica don't like the Giants chances. Also, every preseason record is misleading because the starters play very little and coaches hold out important players if those players have any semblance of an injury. The entire preseason is misleading in many ways, why should a team's record be any different?

16. That’s the hot breath of Zach Mettenberger (47 of 68 in the preseason) you feel on your neck, Jake Locker.

Welp, look for the Josina Anderson report in a few hours about how none of his Titan teammates have taken a shower with Zach Mettenberger yet.

18. None of the Rams’ last five draft picks is on their 53-man roster, including Sam. That’s either a sign of a much better roster in St. Louis, or the sign of some bad drafting late.

Or it's not the sign of bad drafting and four of these picks were 7th round picks who are generally not guaranteed a roster spot anyway. It could be bad drafting, though from what Peter King has told his readers in the past, it is theoretically impossible for a Les Snead/Jeff Fisher-led team to draft poorly.

Patriots fans are used to the cold reality of NFL life. They’ve seen Bill Belichick trade Drew Bledsoe and Richard Seymour and cut Lawyer Milloy and let go Ty Law and Adam Vinatieri and Brandon Spikes in free agency, and so who would be surprised if next in line was the consistent Pro Bowl guard, Logan Mankins, who once played on a torn ACL for the good of the team?

I enjoy how media members like Peter King take the "Bill Belichick will cut anyone" narrative and run with it, like Belichick is colder than most NFL head coaches. It's not entirely true. Drew Bledsoe was traded after the Patriots had won a Super Bowl with Tom Brady as the starting quarterback and the Patriots did a great job replacing Vinatieri with Stephen Gostkowski. Belichick isn't the only cold person in the NFL who doesn't mind letting players go in free agency. My favorite team has released Jake Delhomme, Steve Smith, allowed Julius Peppers and Muhsin Muhammad go in free agency, and traded Kris Jenkins. They were all very popular players. I guess since it isn't the same GM/head coach who presided over all of these then the "he's so cold" narrative doesn't start, but the fact separate GM's/head coaches released these players does show Belichick isn't the only head coach willing to lose good players if he doesn't think they can produce. The narrative that Belichick is cold while other head coaches in the NFL aren't seems tired to me. The media wants to paint Belichick in one way and they will be damned if anything stops them. I know Belichick doesn't need anyone to protect him, but it's sort of unfair to him. He's just making decisions that he thinks are best for the Patriots, just like other GM's/head coaches would do for their team.

Interesting gambit by Belichick. He’s gambling the Patriots can make do on the offensive line and use the resources from the trade, offensive tight end Tim Wright and a fourth-round pick next year, to continue what the Patriots have been for 13 years—a near-playoff lock and consistent double-digit winner. To do that, Belichick has to be impervious to the grenades tossed when he gets rid of such top players.

Again, every head coach has to be impervious to grenades when it comes to making tough decisions. Belichick isn't cold or mean, he's just focused on his team's needs and how to meet those needs.

“Oh, Bill?’’ Mankins said. “I still have tons of respect for Bill. He’s an awesome coach. I loved playing for him. He was the best coach for me to have—he got a lot out of me.’’

Apparently the only one who doesn't understand the NFL is a business is Peter King. Tough decisions are made every year. Bill Belichick isn't an unfeeling robot, no matter how he is presented, he's willing to make hard decisions to meet the needs of his team. He's not the only head coach who will do this either.

It's an interesting move by Belichick and the Patriots, but it's all a business. Players stick around until they are no longer useful.

“Why would his teammates feel uncomfortable taking a shower with Michael Sam? Does he use Axe Garlic and Rotten Egg Body Wash?”
—Comedy Central’s Jon Stewart on his “Daily Show,” after ESPN’s Josina Anderson reported a St. Louis teammate “seems to think Michael Sam is waiting to kind of take a shower as not to make his teammates feel uncomfortable” in the locker room.

Ah yes, I look forward to the Ombudsman addressing this report another month from now when his next column is posted to ESPN.com.

Chip Kelly Wisdom of the Week

Thank God this is back. One week away was one week too long. I need more Chip Kelly coach-speak that Peter King thinks is brilliance.

Kelly, the Eagles’ coach, on handling the cutdown:

“When every guy that’s here is part of the 90-man roster, their lifelong dream is to be an NFL football player and to be the one that tells them that it’s not going to happen here is difficult. It’s something that is inevitable. You have to go from 90 to 75 and 75 to 53. It’s part of the job but it’s not a fun part of the job.

Pretty brilliant so far. The guys on the 90-man roster of an NFL team do in fact want to be on an NFL team. Glad that's cleared up. Also, a team has to get to 53 players by August 30, so unless 37 players are murdered or hidden on the roster somewhere then someone is going to have to tell these 37 players they will not make that specific NFL team.

But it’s always a difficult time when someone’s goal is to play in this league.

Again, the big news here is that these football players trying out to make the Philadelphia Eagles roster do in fact want to be NFL players.

We told those guys on day one: I hope that goal one for us is that you make this football team, but then goal two is that you get an opportunity to make another football team with the exposure that you get here. Hopefully we prepare you for that.

I'm really struggling to find the wisdom in these quotes. It seems, yet again, like general coach-speak to me.

“[Free agent defensive end] Alejandro Villanueva, I’d buy stock in him as a human being.

But you can, Chip, you can!

He’s going to be successful. I talked to him about the reasons we were cutting him loose. He said, ‘Coach, successful people have to make difficult decisions. You don’t have to explain anything to me.'”

If anyone finds anything in these quotes that qualifies as wisdom, please give me a heads up. I can't seem to find anything that doesn't seem like coach-speak or just general comments from a head coach about how hard cuts to get to the 53-man limit can be.

Mr. Starwood Preferred Member Travel Note of the Week

Hunkered down last week and did some writing for 1.5 days in one of the prettiest places I’d never seen: the coast of Maine 90 minutes north of Portland, on the Pemaquid Peninsula. Thanks to the Bradley Inn there for a swell time, and to the Atlantic Ocean for being so beautiful,

THANK YOU ATLANTIC OCEAN FOR BEING SO BEAUTIFUL! YOU MAY TASTE LIKE SHIT WHEN PUT IN PETER'S COFFEE, BUT YOUR SALTY WATER IS A SWEET SALVE TO WHAT AILS PETER WHEN THE BARISTA AT STARBUCKS SPELLS HIS NAME WRONG ON THE CUP CARRYING HIS DELICIOUS LATTE!

I've said it before, but Mike Sam has an ideal name for a linebacker. Only better thing would be if his middle name were Will.
— Sam Farmer   (@LATimesfarmer) August 30, 2014

For those who don’t know what Sam means about Sam, NFL parlance in a 4-3 defense for the linebackers is Mike for the middle linebacker, Will for the weakside outside linebacker, and Sam for the strongside outside linebacker.

Yeah, we got it Peter. Glad you explained it though.

Should I be thankful that Peter didn't tell his readers "to go Google" to see what this means?

Fun @MichaelSamNFL note: @espn crew didn't use a mike flag when interviewing him after @STLouisRams v @MiamiDolphins game. Not an accident.
— Alex Marvez (@alexmarvez) August 29, 2014

A “mike flag” is the identifying network band around the microphone when a correspondent is interviewing a player. And I don’t think I have ever seen an ESPN crew not use ESPN identification when talking to someone on camera.

It would only be better if it were called a Sam or Will flag.

Ten Things I Think I Think

1. I think Michael Sam being waived by the Rams came down to four factors:

I think it is funny that Michael Sam wants to be treated like any other 7th round draft pick and the media will simply not allow this to happen. Peter has to break down the four factors that caused Sam to be cut. Perhaps there is one reason the Rams cut Sam. They have other talent on the 53-man roster they would like to keep and Sam can't fit into what the Rams want to do at the defensive end position.

He was outplayed in camp and in preseason games—though not in a rout—by a more versatile player, undrafted free-agent Ethan Westbrooks, who the Rams think can play at defensive end or defensive tackle. Sam was strictly a defensive end.

All four incumbent defensive ends who made the team—Robert Quinn, Chris Long, William Hayes and Eugene Sims—plus Westbrooks, who showed better pass-rush ability in training camp and games, are signed at least through the end of the 2015 season.

Sam was on just one special team, kick coverage. He wasn’t valuable in the kicking game.

So allow me to get this straight...many of the same factors that caused Michael Sam to fall to the 7th round (he's not versatile, scouts question whether he could provide consistent production, he has no experience outside of playing defensive end and he doesn't play special teams) are the reason he didn't make the Rams' roster? Is that what Peter is telling us? What a shock!

2. I think NFL teams are seeing ghosts on Michael Sam, who, as of midnight Sunday, was still on the street looking for a practice squad to join. If a team plays a 3-4, as many do, he’s not a fit. But Sam is a 257-pound defensive end in a 4-3 system who has a chance to create a little havoc and a chance—a chance, I say, not a sure thing—to be a growth stock for teams. But I talked to three team architects over the weekend. They’re concerned about the circus coming to town with the first openly gay player trying to make an NFL roster. What circus, exactly?

The circus that involves a sportswriter like yourself talking about a 7th round pick at length, listing four reasons that 7th round pick didn't make the 53-man roster, and undoubtedly every move that team makes in regard to the player being analyzed seven different ways. I guess it's with no sense of irony that Peter asks "What circus, exactly?" as he provides more coverage of Sam being released than any 7th round pick has ever received before.

A little ESPN story about shower habits? That’s been the big controversy of the last four months with Sam. He’s had two press conferences, peaceful and uneventful ones, and met the press briefly after each of the St. Louis preseason games, as any player would be subject to doing. And that has created exactly zero problems for the Rams.

It has created zero problems for the Rams, but it has kept the Rams in the media spotlight regarding whether they will keep a guy who was going to probably not even be active on Sundays if he even made the team. Peter has talked about Sam at least every other week in MMQB. There's no controversy, but for Peter to act like it's not a big deal is disingenuous. Peter is one of many sportswriters who are like, "Guys, this is a big deal, but it's totally not a big deal. We are going to cover this Michael Sam story from every possible angle, then wonder why NFL teams worry a 7th round pick is getting too much attention."

4. I think the 49ers set a dangerous precedent for their team in a few ways Sunday, bringing back guard Alex Boone from his summer-long camp holdout, as Adam Schefter reported. One, they chose to not collect his fines for going AWOL from camp despite having two years left on his contract. Two, they told him they wouldn’t put the franchise tag on him when his contract expires after the 2015 season. Three, according to Pro Football Talk, the club raised his pay over the next two seasons from $3.7 million to $6 million total. With the first team offense looking offensive in Weeks 2 and 3 of the preseason, GM Trent Baalke obviously swallowed hard and did some objectionable things (for him) in bowing to Boone.

Oh, so the 49ers didn't "do the right thing" and pay Alex Boone? They "did some objectionable things" by paying him. Again, it's funny how "the right thing" and "the objectionable thing" are how Peter is referring to decisions NFL teams make that he either agrees with or doesn't agree with.

So if Alex Smith had held out of Chiefs camp would it have then been "objectionable" for John Dorsey to give him a new contract? Peter has already said it made sense to give Smith a new contract because other important members of the Chiefs team got one, so if Smith held out for the money that Peter rightfully seems to think Smith should get, would the decision to pay Smith be "objectionable"? It's pretty clear the 49ers need offensive line help, so bringing Alex Boone back makes sense.

5. I think Tom Coughlin, who turned 68 Sunday, had this reaction when I told him in camp he was one win from passing Paul Brown and two from passing Joe Gibbs on the all-time NFL victories list: “Wow. Really?” Then he said that was nice. And that was all. But I do know this: Coughlin loves pro football history, and whatever happens this season with the Giants, he has no interest in retiring anytime soon. Which begs the question about what happens to Coughlin if the Giants have a really bad year. From watching them this summer, it’s possible. I think you have to wait to see the circumstances first. But club president and CEO John Mara does not take kindly to mediocrity. He was very prickly after last year’s 7-9 season, and there’s no question he liked the fact that Coughlin wanted to shake up his coaching staff. But if the offense is awful and Eli Manning struggles, I don’t know if Mara will say he wants back Coughlin and GM Jerry Reese,

That's great, but does this mean Peter doesn't think the Giants will win two games this upcoming season? I understand Tom Coughlin doesn't want to stop coaching, but if the Giants have a really bad year does Peter think Coughlin won't pass Gibbs and Brown? If this isn't what he believes, then why tie in how many games Coughlin has to win to have a chance to pass Joe Gibbs and Paul Brown with Coughlin possibly be fired after the 2014 season if the Giants play poorly again?

6. I think the league is not going to press a tampering case against Jerry Jones for his remarks in the great ESPN profile of him about Adrian Peterson. “Tipsy and waiving his arms,’’ Jones, according to the story, got handed a cell phone with Peterson on it after a George Strait concert at the Cowboys’ stadium, and seemed to be speaking with Peterson about making him a Cowboy someday. Talking to a couple of people with knowledge of the league’s view of the story, I didn’t sense much interest in the league pursuing anything against Jones when he was seriously into the Johnnie Walker Blue Label near midnight.

Oh, so it isn't tampering if the person doing the tampering is drunk? I understand. So I guess this means NFL GM's can get drunk (with witnesses attesting to this GM's drunken state) and then start dialing players under contract with other teams stating the interest that GM has in the player? Sounds great.

Reading the passage, I wonder how much of the conversation with Peterson he remembers. Now, that isn’t to say he should be talking to any employee of another team about anything other than having a nice day. And I’m sure he’ll get a reminder of that from someone in the league office. But it doesn’t sound like the league’s interested in whacking Jones for it.

So is this a mitigating circumstance for tampering? Maybe the NFL's reluctance in whacking Jones for this could have something to do with the head of NFL officiating getting off a party bus with Stephen Jones, but that was no big deal either I guess. That's my conspiracy theory of the day. Dean Blandino downplayed his being on the bus, but it would be awkward if Stephen or Jerry Jones could clarify what happened on the bus or embarrassed the NFL publicly in any way.

Tampering while being drunk still sounds like tampering to me. The excuse that an NFL owner was just blackout drunk doesn't seem like a very good excuse either.

9. I think Texas A&M coach Kevin Sumlin won’t need to send out his résumé when he goes in search of an NFL head-coaching job. Teams will be drooling to get him. Maybe not quite Chip Kelly-style drooling, but it could be close if his team keeps playing the way it did in routing South Carolina the other night, putting up 52 against the ninth-ranked team in the country, on the road, with a new quarterback.

If I'm an NFL team, I'm impressed by Kevin Sumlin, but I'm also wondering when he will put a defense worth a shit out on the field. I'm guessing if Jason Garrett gets fired, then Jerry Jones is going to call Kevin Sumlin. It seems like a Jerry Jones-type move.

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

d. The Red Sox traded Kelly Johnson to Baltimore on Saturday in a deal that will have absolutely no effect on either team. But the upshot’s interesting. Johnson’s now been on every team in the AL East over the last two 23 months.

This is just a depressing note for AL East teams.

e. Story of the Week (and many other weeks): Don Van Natta Jr.’s insightful profile of Dallas owner Jerry Jones. “I get madder every day about missin’ him,” Jones told Van Natta, “him” being Johnny Manziel in the NFL Draft. “I was the only guy [in the organization] who wanted him.”

Sometimes I wish the Cowboys would just listen to every single personnel move Jerry Jones wants made, just to see what would happen. I want Jones to have no other advice when deciding to make a move and having control to make any trade, draft pick or free agent signing he wanted to.

g. Coffeenerdness: There is no better drip coffee in the universe, at least for me, than the Italian Roast at Starbucks. That’s an exclamation point driven home to me every morning with a jarring cup.

In your face Marriott! Your free drip coffee isn't as good as coffee that Peter pays for. Also, "every morning with a jarring cup"? Let's settle down a bit. It's coffee.

i. Happy Labor Day, everyone. I’m going to celebrate this great day by working.

Way to play the victim who has to work on Labor Day. I work as well. I'll remember Peter worked Labor Day when he takes a month vacation in July.

The Adieu Haiku

Three days till kickoff.
NFL’s 95th year
will be offensive.

But not as offensive as a haiku ending a football column. 

0 comments It's Never Too Early to Panic About the Preseason

Mike Lupica likes being critical (Bengoodfella looks in the mirror sadly because this probably describes him too) and he's very good at telling everyone what they should or should not be doing. He has opinions on President Obama golfing too much, what George Steinbrenner would do, and how "You're the Worst" should actually be a television show about Alex Rodriguez. Mike is very concerned about the New York Giants after their preseason performances on offense and so he decides to write a column where he asks questions that can't be answered until the games start. Still, these are VERY IMPORTANT QUESTIONS based on preseason games. Mostly, Lupica seems concerned the Jets have their shit together more than the Giants do. This type of tyranny will not stand.

At least about this there can be no question: If the Giants are allowed to play other teams’ second-team and even third-team defenses with their second-team offense this season, then they might be favorites to win another Super Bowl.

Hilarious. Eli Manning sucks because it's the preseason and he hasn't won the Super Bowl yet.

Are you kidding? Give the ball to Ryan Nassib, Eli Manning’s backup, in the second half in August and look out.

And as everybody knows, how a backup quarterback plays in the preseason against other backups will immediately translate to that backup quarterback playing well in the regular season against the starters.

This time it was the Jets and this time Nassib threw three touchdown passes and the Giants won again, making it 4-0 in the preseason,

Everyone panic! The Giants are 4-0 in the preseason but haven't looked good while being 4-0. This portends trouble in the future because the Giants aren't winning in the sexy way that Mike Lupica requires the Giants to win. Derek Jeter would not accept a 4-0 record if those wins weren't earned in the right way, so why should the Giants say they are 4-0 when it's only their backups winning preseason games? A panic needs to happen, grab your pitchforks, Mike Lupica is storming the streets of New York.

which means this is the most meaningless and fascinating and frightening unbeaten preseason — to Giants fans — in all of team history.

No, this is the most meaningless, fascinating, and frightening unbeaten preseason in NFL history. Is a 4-0 record really an unbeaten record if Mike Lupica refuses to regard it as so? You know the answer before I even finished the question...of course not. The Giants may be 4-0 in the preseason, but these meaningless preseason games definitely mean something for the upcoming season because Mike Lupica has a column he needs to write and this is the only idea he had for a column.

Because when you add up everything we have seen and everything that has happened since the preseason began in Canton, the two most positive developments on offense are these:

1. Eli Manning isn't injured.

2. It's preseason and teams don't always game plan so an offensive/defensive unit's performance may mean very little?

-One two-minute drill from Eli at the end of the first half on Friday night.
-A rookie receiver out of Division II Newberry College named Corey Washington, who has looked like this year’s Victor Cruz even if he has been mostly playing with Second-Half Nassib and Curtis Painter.

I tell you, Mike Lupica works hard. He works hard to discredit any type of success the Giants had in preseason so that he can sound the alarm bells. The Giants may have found an undrafted free agent receiver who can complement Victor Cruz, but that's not going to be enough for Mike Lupica because Washington looked good with Nassib and Painter throwing him the football. Since Eli Manning sucks, how much will Washington's skills drop off when Eli is throwing him the ball?

But whatever happened against the Jets, and that includes all the good things that happened once Eli got the ball for the last time Friday night, Tom Coughlin’s new offense — the vision of new offensive coordinator Ben McAdoo — will enter the regular season with so many more questions to it than answers it’s not even close.

You mean the Giants team hasn't immediately figured out a new offense with one offseason of work in the new system? If the Giants' offensive players can't grasp a new system immediately then that system will obviously be a failure. It's not like NFL playbooks are complicated or anything.

We keep hearing that because of the new offense, the Giants might get off to a slow start. Gee, there’s good news. How did last season’s slow start work out?

The 2007 Giants started off 0-2 and they won the Super Bowl.

The 2011 Giants were 6-6 and they managed to win the Super Bowl.

But no really, I'm sure the slow start the Giants may hypothetically have can only mean the 2014 season will be a waste. Why even bother to play?

There are still new guys at right guard and left guard and center and a tackle, Will Beatty, coming back from a broken leg.

And the Giants are the only NFL team with question marks after the preseason is over. There must be panic about this, because how can the Giants be expected to compete with all of these other perfect NFL teams who don't have roster questions?

now that Hakeem Nicks is catching balls again and running at full speed, he’s doing all that for the Colts. 

If only the Giants would have known that Nicks would be healthy and could contribute, they could have kept Nicks on the roster. Mike Lupica is great at pointing out which free agents the Giants should have kept after those players have been signed by another team and appear to be healthy. If he were a GM, Mike Lupica would be Executive of the Year if he were allowed to wait until the end of the NFL season and then point out what moves his team should have made.

If Corey Washington does not turn out to be the new Victor Cruz, tell me who the second-most reliable wide receiver is after Cruz.

If Eli Manning dies in a parachuting accident, tell me who the best quarterback on the roster is again?

If the Giants' new stadium spontaneously combusted under the weight of Mike Lupica's ego, then where would the Giants play their home games?

If Tom Coughlin has a heart attack on the sidelines, is Ben McAdoo ready for a head coaching job? WHY HASN'T THIS BEEN ANSWERED IN THE PRESEASON GAMES YET?

Tell me how much you think the Giants are going to get out of tight end.

Who knows? Plenty of teams have succeeded without having a Pro Bowl tight end.

Tell me how sure you are that an almost entirely rebuilt offensive line is going to protect a quarterback who took the kind of beating that Eli took a year ago, especially since so many guys on that offensive line should still be wearing name tags.

And of course because Mike Lupica doesn't know the names of the offensive linemen then this must mean these offensive linemen are terrible at protecting Eli Manning. Mike Lupica is a gold mine of knowledge when it comes to the NFL after all, it's not like he just reacts based on what he's seen from the last game or anything.

And please tell me that you think the Giants of Coughlin and Manning, who haven’t won a single playoff game around those two Super Bowls, who haven’t even made the playoffs lately, are ready to take back the NFC East from Chip Kelly’s Philadelphia Eagles.

The Giants don't have to make the playoffs. They can win this thing called the "Wild Card" which means they just need to have at least the fifth or sixth best record in the NFC to make the playoffs. I understand the concept of the Wild Card isn't relatively new, but Mike Lupica has been busy talking over people on television and lecturing the President of the United States, so he probably hasn't had time to learn about this new "Wild Card" thingie.

Going into the regular season the Jets look a lot more organized on offense, even with a second-year quarterback, than the Giants do. And the Jets are a team built around defense.

And because the Jets are built around defense, there is no way they could be organized on offense. Teams built around defense are unorganized on offense, just like teams built around offense usually only have 9-10 guys playing defense on the field due to not having hired anyone who knows how to coordinate a defense.

It doesn’t mean the Giants can’t figure this out when the games count, far from it.

RETREAT! RETREAT!

Mike Lupica has some hot takes about the many questions surrounding the Giants' preseason performance and coats them in doubt about whether the team can be good enough offensively at the beginning of the season to win games, but then is all like, "But you know, it's preseason so who gives a shit...now back to how screwed the Giants are based on their preseason performance."

Nothing like having it both ways, huh? Lupica writes an entire article about how the preseason performance of the Giants means the team is disorganized, the offensive isn't being picked up quickly enough, and there are only two positives to take out of the preseason, but then wants to act like none of these things matter. He's got his bases covered. If the Giants struggle, he can spit out a "I told you the Giants were in trouble" column and if the Giants start out strong he can spit out a "The Giants had issues that I covered in a column, but as I said, it was preseason, and credit goes to the Giants for figuring out and correcting all of the huge problems that I alone pointed out the team had."

We have seen them struggle before in the preseason, but that was when Eli was fully in his comfort zone with Kevin Gilbride’s offense, the only one he has ever known as a professional football player.

Mike Lupica is now acknowledging all of this teeth grinding means nothing. It's typical shitty writing from Lupica that he takes the time to point out how the Giants are screwed if they start off slow (like last year and how did that turn out?!), but then say, "Oh, teams start off slow all the time." Keep riding that middle ground, Mike. Rip the team, but don't rip them hard enough to where your ego gets bruised if you are wrong.

Of course this continues to be the most unusual era in the 90 years of the Giants: Coughlin and Eli winning those two Super Bowls and not winning a single playoff game in any other season they have been together.

Sure, that's odd. I would take the trade-off though.

“No, (I’m) not concerned at this point,” Manning said. “I know we have to keep working and keep getting better. It is not where it needs to be, but I thought there was progress in today’s game. We are going to keep working. It’ll be better and better as things go on and hopefully it will be better next week and better for that opening game. We should be in a better situation. It is not going to be complete at that point. We are going have to continue to make improvements throughout the season.”

They have had four preseason games now. No one is saying the new schemes and the new approach should be “complete” by now.

Mike Lupica earlier in the column:

Tom Coughlin’s new offense — the vision of new offensive coordinator Ben McAdoo — will enter the regular season with so many more questions to it than answers it’s not even close. We keep hearing that because of the new offense, the Giants might get off to a slow start. Gee, there’s good news.

Lupica didn't use the word "complete," but he certainly seems to expect the Giants to have more answers about the offense than they have and finds a slow start to be unacceptable. So it seems like Lupica expects the Giants' offense to be complete without too much more room for improvement.

But you have to believe the first-team Giants’ offense should look better than it does, with one more preseason game, this Thursday night, to play. You would have thought they would have looked good moving the football more than once.

Possibly, but doesn't the fact the second-team offense has looked good mean that some of the Giants players are picking up the new offensive system and can find success in it? I guess not.

You can only imagine what the conversation would be like today if Eli hadn’t taken them down the field that one time Friday night. The Giants defense is going to be better this season, and maybe a lot better than it was last season.

But this doesn't matter because the Giants are a team built around offense. There's no way they can win games with their defense if they are an offensive team. It's impossible for the offense to struggle while the defense excels and the Giants to win games as a result.

It won’t matter if scoring touchdowns is as difficult for this team as scoring runs for the Yankees has been.

And of course Mike ends being negative. Here is Mike Lupica's take on the Giants offense in the preseason.

-It's preseason and the Giants offense hasn't looked good, which means they will start the season off slowly.

-There are so many questions the Giants have that weren't answered in the preseason. This is a bad sign for things to come.

-Who cares? It's preseason.

-The Giants have started slow before with an offense they already know, so their struggles in McAdoo's offense can mean nothing. The Giants' first-team offense doesn't necessarily need to move the ball in the preseason.

-The Giants first-team offense needs to move the ball in the preseason.

-The Giants first-team offense struggling in the preseason means something and if the defense has to carry the team then the Giants won't win games.

-Defense can't win games, except for the Jets who built a team around defense to win games.

Mike Lupica is the best at trying to be the worst. Does anyone like him?