Showing posts with label awards. Show all posts
Showing posts with label awards. Show all posts

Tuesday, April 23, 2019

15 comments MMQB Review: Peter Feels a Draft Edition (I'm Not Calling it FMIA)

I'll skip the typical preamble I've written over the last several years about trying to do more of this and I'm not sure when I'll do it again. Blah, blah, blah. You think you've heard it enough, imagine how many times I've written the "I'm trying to come back and find time..." preamble in the posts I've aborted. I figure I would give this a real shot to see if I remember how to do it. The NFL draft is a few days away and Peter King's sources help him formulate his mock draft. We know how this will play out. Trades happen, smokescreens happen and then Peter will get 4-5 picks correct. Back when I did mock drafts I usually got that many correct on a good year. Today, Peter forgets how to link columns he's referencing, Mike Mayock's daughter explains sending all of the team's scouts home a week before the draft is PERFECTLY NORMAL, and the Adieu Haiku is still a thing unfortunately.

Interesting mock draft dropped Sunday morning in the Los Angeles Times. The paper’s redoubtable NFL beat man, Sam Farmer, 
 
He has me blocked on Twitter. Why? I don't know, because I'm a really nice person.

On a side note, I always like the certainty with which these players are discussed prior to the draft. "10 year starter" and "best defensive player in the draft" is thrown around like gospel rather than the pure speculation it truly is. Also, Peter used to work with Mike Mayock at NBC, so you can feel him rooting for Mayock. I'm sure we will get some excuse-making for Mayock from the media if he struggles as a first-time GM. You know, like if he sends all of his scouts a week before the draft it could be portrayed as a normal thing to do.

had his annual sportswriter mock draft—he’s done it for 10 years—in which he asks longtime NFL writers he trusts in the franchise cities to make the pick of the team they cover. 

Great, I'd love to read it. Let me click on the link and read this despite the fact Sam Farmer has me blocked and clearly doesn't want me to read what he writes.

(Looks for the link to the Sam Farmer article in FMIA, finds nothing)

Usually, when someone refers to a writing on the Interwebs, that person also provides a link. This is especially done when mentioning the Interwebs writing in a complimentary manner. Alas, Peter shall not do this because because because.

This was Somers’ pick, and his explanation to Farmer:

“Arizona: DT Quinnen Williams, Alabama. The Cardinals like Josh Rosen, and I don’t see them taking a quarterback in the first round two years in a row. They need help on the defensive line and Williams would immediately provide that. GM Steve Keim has made some mistakes in the first round by taking guys who weren’t that passionate about football (Jonathan Cooper, Robert Nkemdiche). So I can see them taking Williams.”

This is the part where I mention I read an article about Kyler Murray in "Sports Illustrated" and it seems like one big red flag. It was a well-written article and you should read it sometime. I know, I'll link it here out of courtesy to the article's author.

I'm not stuck on Murray's height, though it doesn't help my opinion of him. He seems somewhat indifferent to what sport he plays. Mostly, I would like a happy medium between "I have made a blood oath to play football and if I violate this oath, then my family shall suffer the consequences of my actions" and "My dad told me to choose and I think I thought about it and this is what I want for now." I don't know. Murray and D.J. Metcalf are two guys I probably wouldn't draft as high as they are going to go. But guess what? No one asked me.

Interesting … and though I’m going to disagree with Somers in my projection, swept along with the Kyler Murray tidal wave, I do think there’s a good rationale for trading down or taking another player. 

To be clear, it's a very tiny tidal wave that isn't even sure it wants to sweep Peter up or not. You know, whatever the moon's gravitational pool wants the tidal wave to do and all. 

The Cardinals have done a good job in shutting up since it was reported at the combine seven weeks ago that Kingsbury let it slip that drafting Murray was a “done deal.”

EVER SINCE THE CARDINALS PUBLICLY PROCLAIMED WHO THEY ARE GOING TO PICK, THEY HAVE DONE A GOOD JOB OF PRETENDING THEY HAVEN'T PUBLICLY PROCLAIMED WHO THEY ARE GOING TO PICK.

I can't understate how upset I am that Peter King didn't refer to Kliff Kingsbury as "precocious." I could not be more disappointed, but at least Peter uses the word once in this FMIA that is really MMQB.

Two other bits of light drama: 

There is just light drama for now. The heavy drama starts on Friday and Saturday when Mike Mayock and Jon Gruden realize the draft isn't going as they expected and there are no scouts around to bounce ideas off. But don't worry, Mike Mayock's daughter will Tweet about how all of this heavy drama is totally normal.

I have four quarterbacks going, but lower than you think—at 1, 15, 23 and 31.

Ah yes, Peter still knows what I'm thinking better than I know what I'm thinking, so he knows when I expect the quarterbacks to be drafted in Thursday's draft. 

1. Arizona: Kyler Murray, QB, Oklahoma

They could decide to take Murray, the choice of head coach Kliff Kinsgbury. They could decide to take the best edge-rusher (Nick Bosa)—who I hear is the choice of many in the building—or the best player (Quinnen Williams) in the draft.

Oh yes, Williams is "the best player in the draft." I love these labels based on projections which are never, ever wrong. I've been wrong about them, so I would expect Peter to know better, except I know better than to expect Peter to know better. 

2. San Francisco: Nick Bosa, edge rusher, Ohio State

Niners have loved him since the Cotton Bowl in 2017, when Bosa’s 1.5 sacks led the marauding Ohio State defense in a 24-7 pummeling of USC’s Sam Darnold in the last game of the star QB’s college career. I hear the Cardinals think of Bosa as a “generational player,” which just speaks to their love of Murray if they’re willing to pass on Bosa and leave him to the Niners.

(Whispers) This could also speak to Kliff Kingsbury not knowing what he's doing if he's the only one in the Cardinals organization who wants to draft Murray and the choice of many in the building is a different guy who they consider to be a "generational player."

But again, I'm just a guy typing on a keyboard, while Kliff Kingsbury is a guy who just got fired a few months ago for not winning enough football games. Though he did have creative control over Texas Tech's uniforms and the team did look very spiffy while they lost games. I'm only saying that if the choice of many in the building is considered a "generational player" and the guy who wants Kyler Murray is the head coach who went 35-40 as a head coach in college, as well as 19-35 in Big 12 play, I'm going with the "many" who want Bosa. Also, I would not have hired Kliff Kingsbury. But again, I can't discount the wisdom of the team that fired their last coach after one season because he didn't win enough games with a rookie quarterback the team is currently trying to replace.

3. New York Jets: Ed Oliver, DT, Houston

Imagine Josh McDaniels, Chad O’Shea and Brian Daboll—the offensive brains of the AFC East—designing protections to keep Leonard Williams and Oliver from wrecking games over the next three or four years.

Get rid of the ball quickly. One of these three offensive coordinators has thus far shown he knows how to design protections to do this. I'll give you a guess which AFC East team he gets paid by.

5. Tampa Bay: Devin White, LB, LSU

Lots of people love White, a tackling machine who, at 237, tackles with the force of a 260-pounder. I’m taking my best guess of what GM Jason Licht would do if he was staring at White and Josh Allen here … because the Bucs need a pass-rusher too. Jason Pierre-Paul is 30, and other than possibly the precocious Carl Nassib,

Carl Nassib is so precocious. Peter could just pinch his cheeks and slap him on the ass with a paddle as a light dramatic punishment. Why would a grown man be considered precocious? Well, at the age of 26, no defensive end should have 12 career sacks. By the definition of "precocious" (which is "exceptionally early in development or occurrence") there is no way a defensive end should average 4 sacks per season by age 26. So precocious.

Plus, White might be the best defensive leader in this draft.

If you are keeping score at home, which if not, why aren't you, please update your NFL Draft whiteboard with the following 2019 NFL Draft superlatives:

Kyler Murray: Most Likely to be Drafted by Kliff Kingsbury
Nick Bosa: Best Edge-Rusher/Generational Talent
Quinnen Williams: Best Player in the Draft
Devin White: Best Defensive Leader in the Draft

I don't want to spoil the next superlative, but R.I.P. Jason Witten.

A veteran personnel man who knows Dave Gettleman said the other day, “Dave wants a pass-rusher in the worst way. He won’t reach for one, but he’ll get one with one his first three picks.”

Gettleman won't reach for one, but looking at his history of drafting DE's, where the two DE's he drafted in Carolina (one in the 2nd round and one in the 3rd round) are no longer on the roster, and the 1st round DT he drafted for pass rushing purposes isn't going to have his fifth year option picked up, it doesn't look great. Other than that, "getting one" wasn't the issue. It was getting a good one in the draft, though he did draft KK Short. And I know Dave Gettleman and it's a crapshoot whether he drafts a good defensive end or not.

7. Jacksonville: T.J. Hockenson, TE, Iowa

Daniel Jeremiah said the other day he thinks Hockenson could be the reincarnation of Jason Witten

So when did Jason Witten die? If Hockenson is the reincarnation of Jason Witten, that has to mean Jason Witten died. Sure, some "Monday Night Football" viewers may have wished Witten was dead, but that doesn't mean he is. He only acted brain-dead.

T.J. Hockenson: Most Likely to Have Been Reincarnated as the Not-Yet-Dead Jason Witten.

Bills love Quinnen Williams, but I can’t see the Raiders parting with him if he’s there at four. Bills could also trade up for Josh Allen, 

Well, that would be confusing to draft two players named "Josh Allen" in the first round in consecutive seasons.

or pick T.J. Hockenson if he falls to them. But if they stay, Jonah Williams could be an upgrade to Spencer Long at right guard or possibly, eventually, Ty Nsekhe, at right tackle. Lots of differing opinions in the scouting community on Williams. I would ask Bills Nation to look up “quixotic” in the dictionary. 

Yeah, you fucking in-bred high school graduate Bills fans. Go look up big words in the dictionary so that you may understand the big words that Peter King doesn't even use in the context of your draft pick because you are all too stupid to get it anyway. Look up the word, come back, and then you will understand the word Peter wanted to use, but didn't, because he doesn't want to lose you. 

Jonah Williams: Basically Don Quixote

18. Minnesota: Garrett Bradbury, C, North Carolina State

Speaking of PFF, the lowest-rated NFL center in the league by far last year was Minnesota’s Pat Elflein

And when have PFF ratings, many of which come out an hour or two after an NFL game has ended, thereby showing no regard for space and time through which a person could grade a three hour game, ever been wrong?

The Vikings pick at 18, 50 and 81, and the perception on the scouting trail is that two of those three picks will be offensive linemen.

And if any team knows offensive linemen, it's the team that drafted Matt Kalil and signed Mike Remmers as a free agent. Very offensive. 

Garrett Bradbury: Most Likely to Not Be Offensive

20. Pittsburgh: Rock Ya-Sin, CB, Temple

Imagine the first cornerback off the board being a guy who played one year at Temple after transferring from the Presbyterian (S.C.) College Blue Hose, and who will have one of the great names in the history of whatever team drafts him. 

Okay, I imagined it. It's ironic that Peter King thinks the name of a prospect is funny when that prospect changed the name he uses for public consumption (from "Abdurrahman Ibn") because he knew many people could not pronounce it. Peter never fails to show what a man of the world he is.

Rock Ya-Sin: Most Likely to Sound Like a Rapper Who Appeared on a Nas Album That Wasn't "Illmatic" or "Stillmatic."

21. Oakland: Josh Jacobs, RB, Alabama

PROJECTED TRADE: Oakland sends 24th and 106th picks to Seattle for this choice.

So, the best running back in this draft will probably be picked somewhere in the twenties,

Josh Jacobs: Best Running Back in the Draft

I met with Jacobs last week, by the way. Delightful fellow.

As was Johnny Manziel prior to the year he was drafted. Both played in the SEC and both have a "J" in their name. They have nothing to do with each other, but I wanted to remind you that Peter was taken in by Johnny Manziel, which I probably shouldn't really blame Peter for. Manziel just wanted to get drafted higher than he deserved so he was on his good behavior for a few months.

Josh Jacobs: Most Likely to be a Pretty Delightful Fellow

22. Baltimore: Clelin Ferrell, DE, Clemson 

New England hopes Ferrell falls 10 more spots, but he won’t. The Ravens also could trade—rookie GM Eric DeCosta would love to accumulate more picks. But Ferrell is an ideal building block on a defensive front that needs a new star. I won’t be shocked if Ferrell is gone if the Ravens take a 10-year center like Erik McCoy of Texas A&M;

Erik McCoy: Most Likely to be a 10-Year Center

23. New York Giants: Daniel Jones, QB, Duke

PROJECTED TRADE: New York gets this pick and No. 55 from Houston for No. 17 overall.

As for Jones the player, there’s a wide disparity in opinion in the man who went 17-19 as a college starter. Very smart, but he doesn’t have the deep arm of the three other first-round candidates. In Bob McGinn’s annual deep dive into the top draft prospects, the veteran scribe quotes a NFL scout saying of Jones: “He reminds me of Ryan Tannehill. There’s just something missing with him.” Damning, but the four first-rounders seem to all have zits this year.

Daniel Jones: Most Likely to Have a Weak-Ass Arm, Plus Has Challenges Controlling His Acne

I also have to address the "Four first-rounders seem to all have zits this year" comment. I feel like every year we hear two things about that draft's quarterbacks.

1. Next year's class is better than this year.
2. This year's class all have weaknesses which bothers some NFL GM's.

Other than Andrew Luck, who is the pinnacle of QB perfection and has been since the day he emerged from his mother's womb playbook in his hand, when was the last time there has been a QB or group of first-round QB's that were considered "safe" or guy(s) who didn't have questions about their talent? I can't remember a time. Every draft there are questions about the top quarterbacks in the draft. It's the nature of the NFL. I would expect the QB's to have zits every single year, as they are college quarterbacks who aren't perfect.

25. Philadelphia: Marquise Brown, WR, Oklahoma

Some love him. Some think he’s too wispy at 166, and they’re worried that he enters the NFL nursing a foot injury, and he might be prone to injury in the big-boy league.

This is not a terribly poor spot for Brown, but I would think a player of this weight and with his recent injury history should legitimately have questions about his ability to stay healthy. The list of small-ish wide receivers taken in the 1st round isn't great of late either. John Ross was let go by the Bengals, Will Fuller (he is listed at 185 pounds) has been very injury-prone, Phillip Dorsett has been a disappointment, and Tavon Austin is not that good either. Of course, Brandin Cooks has been great. But a college wide receiver that is small-ish already has a strike against him, much less a college wide receiver coming off a major injury.

Marquise Brown: Most Likely to be Wispy

27. Oakland: Deandre Baker, CB, Georgia

If the Raiders can come out of this first round with the best defensive tackle in the draft, the best running back in the draft, and a corner who should push for playing time immediately, it’s going to be a successful first draft for the rookie GM Mayock.

If you can say Williams is the best defensive tackle in the draft, Jacobs is the best running back for the draft and ignore that the Raiders are so thin at CB that any player drafted in the first two rounds then you may be Mike Mayock's friend. I'm being snide, but Mayock is a first-time GM and when has Jon Gruden been an astute drafter of talent? I will remain skeptical until I am proven otherwise.

Given the combination of Jon Gruden and Mike Mayock in Oakland, the calisthenics required to compliment the job they are doing and remove responsibility among their friends in the media might break world records if the Raiders struggle again this year. But don't worry, we will see here in a minute that Peter has the Raiders schedule as the reason they could struggle this year. At least the NFL has given Gruden a ready-made excuse for potential mediocrity.

30. Green Bay: D.K. Metcalf, WR, Mississippi

They haven’t taken a receiver in the top 50 in 11 years (Jordy Nelson, 2008, 36th overall). I could see Andre Dillard here too, but Brian Gutekunst is trying to stock up for one last multi-year run with Aaron Rodgers, giving him the kind of weapons that will allow him to be Aaron Rodgers again.

"One last multi-year run" as if this isn't the goal of nearly every NFL GM, given the salary cap restrictions in the NFL. 

I might go Marquise Brown here if I were Green Bay, but I realize a 166-pound burner may not have the shelf life of a Sterling Sharpe-big-bodied player like Metcalf.

What if a 166-pound burner actually knows how to get open and catch a football, which D.K. Metcalf hasn't shown he can do with his 67 career receptions? Also, Metcalf played in 21 games in his college career at Ol' Miss, while Marquise Brown and his short shelf life played in 25 games over his college career at Oklahoma. Brown may seem brittle but he's been durable compared to Metcalf.

Denver likes Lock, and might be able to snag him as a two-year learner behind Joe Flacco while retaining the ability to use the 71st pick this year on a potential starter at a need position, like Texas A&M tight end Jace Sternberger. A move like this wouldn’t surprise me, but I also think the way Denver GM John Elway’s talking, he could punt on a young quarterback until the richer QB draft of 2020.

There's the narrative I like! Next year's draft is going to be a great one, at least until Jacob Fromm struggles this year, questions about Tua's height crop up and whatever else happens that causes doubts in the minds of NFL scouts ends up happening. THEN, it is the 2021 QB class with Trevor Lawrence that is the really rich one. Around and around we go. 

John Elway: Most Likely to Poorly Evaluate a College Quarterback

In the end, I struggled mightily with the Frank Clark trade from Seattle to Kansas City. I had the trade in my first draft of the mock on Friday, then took it out for 48 hours, and just put it back in Sunday night. The waffling came before I sent Clark to the Chiefs because of the Kareem Hunt and Tyreek Hill incidents. And I will not be surprised at all if the Chiefs don’t do it. But I’m taking the gamble, because the Kansas City need for edge-rush is so pronounced. 

It feels like wanting Frank Clark's ability to rush the passer is nice, but I have to think even the Chiefs are self-aware enough to not trade for him. It's not like he's beating women and children on the regular, like Tyreek Hill seems to do, but he's not exactly shown over the past few years that his lesson was learned.

• Here is something that simply should not happen. The factoid that, upon further review, is a blight on the 2019 schedule:

Raider games in Oakland in the 48 days between Sept. 16 and Nov. 2: zero.
Raider games in Oakland in the 15 days between Nov. 3 and Nov. 17: three.

Let me say, this is crazy and ridiculous scheduling by the NFL. But, I am also jaded and now that Peter likes Mike Mayock, so I can't help but be so jaded this bizarre scheduling isn't in some way going to be used as an excuse if the Raiders struggle this year. 

I’m going to try to interpret why the NFL did what it did to Oakland. First, the Raiders and the A’s are the only football and baseball teams sharing one stadium. The Raiders are not keen on playing many games on the field when it is set up for baseball, with the skin infield and pitcher’s mound.

Because with how the Oakland Raiders have treated their fans with the whole "moving town" thing, it's only right that the franchise be treated fairly so there isn't a huge gap between their home games. After all, the fans the team is abandoning want to see the team play, so the NFL should consider the needs of the fans the Raiders are screwing over. In reality, if the Raiders don't want to play on the field set up for baseball (which I understand), then it's not going to make scheduling their games easier. This is just a basic fact of the matter.

Imagine if Al Davis saw this schedule. The Raiders play five straight games between Sept. 22 and Oct. 27, at mid-morning on their bodyclocks. Five games in a row, all at 10 a.m. PT.

Counterargument: If the Raiders play five straight games at 1pm EST, then it should be easier to acclimate their bodyclocks to playing at this time compared to having games at 1pm EST throughout their schedule. The Raiders will have a chance to get used to playing at 1pm if they play five games in a row at that time.

• Bills Mafia will be screaming about respect. Bills fans are an insular lot, with the Bills Mafia as loyal a fan group as exists in the NFL. What must the Mafiosos have been thinking when Buffalo was the only team of 32 to get zero prime time games? The coaches must love 14 games with 1 p.m. ET starts, and five road trips of an hour or less in the air. But the fans feel only disrespect. The only nod to national attraction is Buffalo’s first Thanksgiving game in 25 years—the mid-afternoon CBS tilt at Dallas.

I would think a Thanksgiving game is not terribly disrespectful. It's only going to be one of the most-watched games of the year. But every NFL fan base screams about respect. My favorite team's fan base is always whining about how nobody respects the team. It's standard fandom stuff. 
“As a kid, my whole dream was to win Super Bowls and play QB in the NFL. For me it was always football. But at the same time it wasn’t.”
—Kyler Murray, to Robert Klemko of The MMQB and Sports Illustrated in a magazine story this week.

Again, reading that article didn't make me question that Kyler Murray likes to play football. It made me question whether Murray didn't like playing baseball as much as he likes playing football and made me wonder what happens when his father has less of a say in the decision. Throw in that even Lincoln Riley indicates that Murray's leadership skills aren't necessarily one of his best attributes and he's a lot of red flags for me.

Bill Belichick turned 67 the other day, which is about the time most normal human beings are seriously pondering retirement.

I seriously ponder retirement around the same time I die, partly because my Social Security money is being drained by Baby Boomers like Bill Belichick and medical care will be so expensive at that point in my life I may have to work just to pay for it. Anyway, carry on...

In fact, 12 of the 15 winningest coaches have not coached, or did not coach, at age 67 or older. Belichick will make that 11 of 15 this fall.

Looking at the top 15, and how many seasons they coached after turning 67:

1. Don Shula: 0. Coached last game at 65.
2. George Halas: 6. Went 47-33-5 and won one NFL title after turning 67.
3. Belichick.
4. Tom Landry: 0. Coached last game at 64.
5. Curly Lambeau: 0. Coached last game at 55.
6. Chuck Noll: 0. Coached last game at 59.
7. Andy Reid: 0. He is 61.
8. Marty Schottenheimer: 0. Coached last game at 63.
9. Dan Reeves: 0. Coached last game at 59.
10. Chuck Knox: 0. Coached last game at 62.
11. Bill Parcells: 0. Coached last game at 65.
12. Tom Coughlin: 3. Went 19-29 after turning 67.
13. Mike Shanahan: 0. Coached last game at 61.
14. Jeff Fisher: 0. Coached last game at 58.
15. Paul Brown: 1. Went 11-4 after turning 67.

You can not convince me that Peter didn't include this information just so he could put Jeff Fisher's name up here. My level of jaded is off the charts.

Lots of Steve Keim criticism. From Ravven L.: “I find it interesting that you say the Cards personnel people are at ‘the upper end among personnel people in belief in their ability to pick players’ but then you detail the incredible lack of talent on that team. How are these two statements compatible?”

My statement was about how confident GM Steve Keim and VP of player personnel Terry McDonough are about their personnel acumen—not about their recent performance in the draft and free agency, which has obviously been lacking. 

So because the Cardinals think they are good at picking players, not based on the recent performance of picking players, the Cards personnel people are at "the upper end among personnel people in belief in their ability to pick players"? I feel like this is a sort of circular reasoning.

"Because we believe we are good at picking players, we will continue to believe that we are good at picking players based on this belief."

But let’s be fair. Arizona won 50 games in Keim’s first five years as GM, got Carson Palmer very cheap in trade with Oakland, and hired Bruce Arians as one of his first decisions as GM (along with club president Michael Bidwill). In his drafts, Keim drafted Tyrann Mathieu with the 69th pick, John Brown with the 91st, and David Johnson with the 86th. He traded the 61st pick plus guard Jonathan Cooper to New England for Chandler Jones; Jones has recorded 41 sacks in his three Cardinals seasons. It’s okay to say Keim is in a personnel slump, but overall, his six years have been better than average.

He also fired Steve Wilks after one season, used the #10 pick on a quarterback he may no longer want, while Mathieu/Brown are no longer with the team. The problem is a personnel slump can set an NFL team back quite a few seasons. While Peter points to the 50 games the Cardinals have won over Keim's first five seasons, they have won 18 games over the last three seasons. That is a more important and relevant statistic. 

1. I think there was a lot of buzz Friday when NFL Network’s Ian Rapoport tweeted that the Raiders would send home their scouts for the weekend, and for the days leading up to the draft, preventing them from leaking any of the information on the team’s draft board. “The belief is they [Jon Gruden and Mike Mayock] don’t know who to trust and wanted to clear the room,” Rapoport reported. A few thoughts:

Peter has to cape up for Mike Mayock now. He spends four solid paragraphs of bullet points pointing out that "this is all really fucking normal, guys." Perhaps it is normal, which is contrary to most of what I have read. It seems like a chaotic situation to me.

There is also this doozy:

• Re Mayock: One of his friends in the league told me the other day he felt this was Mayock’s attempt to take control over a process that he’s running for the first time in his life. “Wouldn’t you think it’s fair for Mike, with three picks in the first round, to close the circle and keep it as tight as he can?” this friend said.

Sure, if I'm desperate to make excuses for Mayock and I'm his friend, this is how I would reason out the decision. If I were a reasonable person who did not know Mike Mayock personally, I would say as a rookie GM running his first draft wouldn't I want the same scouts who have provided me with evaluations over the past few months to be present in the draft room so I can ensure the best decisions are being made for the future of the franchise? I wouldn't say it's "fair" for Mayock to close the circle, because that's an odd choice of words, but it's certainly within his right to do it. Why Mayock (and Gruden) would do this is the concern, not whether Mayock could do it.

I take the opinion of a Mayock's friend with a grain of salt. They are friends, so of course wrong or right, the friend will rationalize it.

 • Mayock’s daughter Leigh tweeted over the weekend that she went out to dinner with her dad recently and when he went to the bathroom, he took his draft notebook with him rather than leave it at the table, where only his daughter was. “Don’t take it personal scouties,” she said.

Oh, well if Mike Mayock's daughter says this is normal then I guess I should change my mind. In this situation, Mayock didn't leave his draft notebook in public with his daughter at the table where any stranger could run up and grab it. If Mayock considers his scouts to be strangers who would take his draft notebook for nefarious purposes, then perhaps they should have been fired a long time ago. I get that Mayock (and Gruden) want total control over the draft process, but they can do this without essentially telling their scouts to find other jobs. So despite what Mike Mayock's daughter says, telling the Raiders scouts to not show up for the draft is really odd. 

2. I think for all of you, particularly in Packer Nation, who wonder why in the world Green Bay has never played in England or Mexico, you may not have to wonder that much more. I think Green Bay’s time is coming, likely as soon as 2020, to finally go on the road to play a game in London. The reasons why Green Bay has never had to make the trip are predictable—the Packers don’t want to give up one of eight sold-out home games, and no team hosting the Packers wants to give up that gate because the Packers travel so well and fill the stadium and local hotels with fans. But I think the NFL is conscious of not giving a prized franchise special treatment.

Because when I think of the NFL, I think of them being conscious of not giving prized franchises special treatment. Any review of the schedule of primetime games shows that the NFL definitely doesn't play favorites. It just feels like the Cowboys play three Sunday Night Football games every single year. Sometimes they play two and sometimes they play four. 

5. I think that’s why the draft is so compelling. So many people. So many opinions

And yet, Twitter is a cesspool for these same reasons. Weird. 

8. I think my favorite quote of the spring, and nothing is close for second place, is Giants GM Dave Gettleman responding to a question about the strengths of the 2019 draft by saying, in part, “The wides are thick.” Meaning there are a lot of wide receivers on the Giants board. I just love the way he said it.

I have been a Dave Gettleman defender in the past. I cannot lie and say otherwise, but the rose is off the bloom for me. He seems to use fun words that sportswriters enjoy writing down (Hog Mollies, Blue Gooses) and then drafts players that end up not panning out. If I'm a Giants fan, the guy who drafted Kelvin Benjamin and Devin Funchess better not be talking about "thick" receivers or else I'm afraid I may get a thick receiver. Gettleman can say it in a fun manner, but I do hope he's learned his lesson. The fact he traded the most dynamic wide receiver in the NFL, while swallowing dead money, tells me otherwise though. 

10. I think these are my other thoughts of the week:

a. God help our country.

Thanks Peter. Your contribution is appreciated. Maybe Donald Trump should tell all of his advisors not to show up to Cabinet and departmental meetings and that will fix things. After all, he just needs to get full control over the process. It's only fair. 

e. Story of the Week: The Rise and Fall of a New York Shock Jock, by Nick Paumgarten of the New Yorker. Great story about the downfall of Craig Carton, who teamed with Boomer Esiason on New York sports station WFAN’s morning show. Man, gambling is a one-way street to hell. Just read this piece. And an excellent job of taking us deep inside the story by Paumgarten.

f. “Are you Craig Carton?”

g. “Yes I am.”

h. “You’re under arrest.”

a. Why.

b. Was this.

c. Four points on the outline.

d. When it is simply one point that Peter wanted to mention

e. ?

i. My wife and I watch “Jeopardy” most nights. 

What? I'm so shocked about this. I bet Peter watches "Seinfeld" re-runs when he's not watching "Jeopardy." It's so outside the realm of Peter's demographic to watch "Jeopardy" and "Seinfeld" though.

We’ve been riveted in the last couple of weeks by James Holzhauer, the incredibly intelligent, lighning-fast-with-the-buzzer champion who already has the five most lucrative winning shows of all time. Holzhauer is a professional sports gambler, according to the show.

Now Peter, I've heard that gambling is a one-way street to hell. Maybe go talk to the person that said that. He's brilliant and asked God to help our country so you know for sure he's trying to help out.

j. Joe Pinsker of The Atlantic with an interesting story about how Holzhauer, essentially, is so brilliant his games are not fair fights.

k. When the challengers get introduced at the start of the show, they’re lambs led to the slaughter. I’ve never seen anything like it.

It sounds like gambling is no longer a one-way street to hell. It's almost like it depends on the person doing the gambling. 

l. Coffeenerdness: For some reason that is foreign to me, because it’s never happened in my 61 years on earth, I have been getting allergy attacks. 

Maybe you have been gambling too much and your body is telling you that it's a one-way street to hell, unless you are good at it, in which case you get to be on "Jeopardy" and people like you will be in awe of you.

The Adieu Haiku

My mock draft stinks. Stinks!
Over/under on direct
hits: Four point five. Hmmmm.


It's not shocking that "Sports Illustrated" didn't fight tooth and nail to keep the Adieu Haiku like they fought to keep the name "MMQB."

Speaking of stinks, I wish that Peter knew the Adieu Haiku stinks. I mean, he ended this haiku with "Hmmmm." Not very poetic.

Wednesday, November 25, 2015

0 comments Murray Chass Thinks the Most Valuable Player Award Should Be a Team Award

Murray Chass and the writing he posts on his non-blog hasn't really been covered by me of late. He's usually at his best (worst) when it comes time for awards season, because that's when he takes his boring and repetitious stabs at criticizing Sabermetrics. He specifically doesn't like WAR, not because he understands WAR, but because it is the easiest metric to spell. Simplicity in all things. WAR is the most popular advanced statistic for the anti-stats crowd to criticize, just because it's easy to spell and sticks in one's mind. Murray writes on his non-blog about how Bryce Harper and Mike Trout are not MVP candidates as much anymore because their team may not make the playoffs. Murray wants to be clear that he understands a team's record and whether that team makes the playoffs isn't what determines which player(s) should win the MVP. That's not what Murray is saying. What he is saying is that he won't vote for a player as MVP if his team doesn't make the playoffs, because he can't be individually valuable if the players around him aren't good enough to make the playoffs. So the MVP can go to a player whose team doesn't make the playoffs, except not really. As always, Murray explains his idiotic point of view in the most aggravating way possible.

At some relatively early point in the season some people were already proclaiming Bryce Harper and Mike Trout this year’s most valuable players.

Yes, "people" were doing this. "People" always do this, especially when referenced in such a vague manner.

Send the plaques to the engraver, etch their names on them and just wait for an appropriate moment to put them in their hands.

That appropriate moment being when that appropriate moment always happens, which is after the season is over. 

One minor problem. Four weeks remain in the season, and no votes have been cast. The voters haven’t even received their ballots.

What? So "people" are going to have stop handing the MVP awards to Harper and Trout. Stop that, "people" who are doing this! Stop right now. Murray will further explain why you must immediately stop or face the wrath of bacne accusations from Murray on this here non-blog. 

Both Trout and Harper have encountered potholes en route to their anticipated awards.

Both have been only slightly worse at hitting the baseball in the second half of the season (or were when Murray wrote this), and therefore even though they are still hitting the hell out of the ball Murray is going to use this as an excuse to say neither player should be MVP? Is that the pothole?

Their teams, contenders earlier in the season, have fallen by the wayside.

Individual awards presented to a player based on his team's achievement. It's a shining day for those who seem to think individual athletes should be rewarded based on the team around him. I am not one of those people. 

The Angels were in first place in the A.L. West at the All-Star break, but they lost 27 of 41 games before Sunday and fell 5 ½ games from the division lead and 3 ½ games off the second wild-card spot.

The Nationals were also in first place at the All-Star break in the N.L. East, but a subsequent 20-26 stretch left them in second place fighting for their post-season lives as the Mets barreled past them with a rejuvenated offensive onslaught.

And obviously, because the Mets are a better overall team than the Nationals then this means Bryce Harper is less valuable. The Nationals team moves down in the standings, but this is really just a reflection on one person's ability to be valuable. Harper is the constant for the Nationals, but his value is determined by the variables around him. Makes sense in Murray's head.

What does their teams’ status have to do with their candidacy for the most valuable player award?

Not as much as Murray seems to think it should. I won't completely dismiss a team's record when evaluating a player's MVP candidacy, but it's pretty far down the list of things I believe should be considered when evaluating a specific player. 

Voters generally focus on the word “value,” which is what they should do no matter what the analytics-obsessed non-voters think and say.

I don't think analytics-obsessed non-voters fail to focus on the word "value" at all. Some people simply have a different method they use to evaluate a player's value. That's all. Murray wants to frame this as a "right or wrong" argument, but it's more of an argument over the best way to evaluate a player's value to his team. 

These relatively new-to-the-party noisemakers fail to understand the award’s meaning. They cite their WAR rankings – that would be wins above replacement for the ignorant and unwashed among you – and proclaim the player with the highest WAR ranking most valuable.

Murray is always using WAR. It's easy to write, that's why. I don't know if anyone just looks at WAR and then ends the discussion there. Murray wants to believe this is true so he can portray those who use WAR as a way to evaluate an MVP candidate as being narrow-minded and not thoughtful. In reality, Murray is the narrow-minded and not thoughtful person when tying a team's record to a member of that team's MVP candidacy. 

The player’s value to his team doesn’t seem to have a bearing on his selection. In other words, they are choosing the player they think is the best in the league, not the most valuable.

What is the difference in "best" and "most valuable" though? Isn't a player who contributes the most Wins Above Replacement the "most valuable" player because he contributes the most wins compared to a replacement player? I'm playing devil's advocate in part, but a player who brings the most wins compared to other players in the majors is certainly also most valuable. It's not that anyone who disagrees with Murray is wrong, as he insists they are, it's is simply that those who are new-to-the-party use a different method of determining the best in the league.

That’s what is good about the Baseball Writers Association award. They require the voters to think, perhaps to debate.

If thinking were really required then I would have to think many of these voters would understand it doesn't make a hell of a lot of sense to base a significant part of a player's MVP candidacy on where that player's team is in the playoff standings. The whole "If he was so good then why didn't his team make the playoffs?" line of reasoning is such a shockingly lazy way of voting for MVP. Yet, that's the reasoning given by Murray and other voters when explaining why they didn't vote for a certain player. It's so lazy.

WAR doesn’t require thinking, as far as I know.

It doesn't require thinking? Then calculate Bryce Harper's WAR right now. Go for it. 

WAR is a statistic, which after being calculated, speaks for itself. This is much like where a player's team is in the standings doesn't require thinking either. How WAR combines with other factors that determine a player's MVP worthiness is a matter of debate and thought.

If I’m wrong, I’m sure someone will tell me.

Murray says this as if it is ridiculous someone would correct him when he's wrong. Yes, God forbid someone should tell Murray when he's disseminating misleading or incorrect information. It just shows how these Stats Geeks love to be right that they won't allow Murray to unfairly criticize and mock advanced statistics without them pointing out the factual inaccuracies in his arguments. How silly of them to expect Murray to be honest and informed. 

I recall the BBWAA selection of Justin Morneau as A.L. MVP in 2006. The metrics monster attacked the choice as if it were a violation of one of the 10 Commandments. They brought out their rankings and proudly and boastfully showed why Morneau should not have received the award. Again, they failed to consider Morneau’s value to the Twins, counting only his value to their WAR rankings.

If I remember correctly, the argument was being made that Justin Morneau may not have been even the MVP of his own team. Joe Mauer hit .347/.429/.507 that season while playing the position of catcher, while Morneau hit more dingerz but hit .321/.375/.559 while playing first base. Yes, Mauer had a higher WAR then Morneau that season, but Morneau's selection as AL MVP was questioned in that he may not have even been the most valuable player on his own team, much less the most valuable American League player.

If their teams don’t make the playoffs, it could undermine their chances for MVP. I’m not saying a player’s team has to reach the post-season, but if, say, the Angels fall short, how valuable was Trout?

Murray isn't saying a player's team has to reach the postseason, but if a player's team doesn't reach the postseason then how could he be valuable? That's his point apparently. So it's not required for a player's team to make the playoffs, except it sort of is. And to expect a player to singlehandedly drag his team to the playoffs is unrealistic. Trout can still be the most valuable player in the American League if the team around him just isn't very good. 

That would especially be the case if a playoff team had a player who was valuable in helping his team get to the playoffs. I’ll get to those players after looking at another element of the award that outsiders don’t understand.

Yes, those things "outsiders" don't understand. Murray wrote about sports for a living a decade ago and those people who love baseball don't understand those things that Murray understands. It's fun how Murray brags about the BBWAA voters being open-minded and up for a debate, while using closed-minded and narrow reasoning for why he personally understands the debate better than those without a vote understand the debate.

Both Goldschmidt, Arizona’s first baseman, and Arenado, Colorado’s third baseman, are having terrific seasons, but MVP?

If they are the most valuable player in the National League, regardless of how good their teams are, then they should be considered for NL MVP. 

The Diamondbacks started Sunday tied for third in the N.L. West. The Rockies were in last place in the division, both with losing records. As good as Goldschmidt and Arenado have been, what have they done that is so valuable? Maybe the Rockies could have lost a few more games than the 79 they have already lost.

Probably the same thing Josh Donaldson has done to make himself so valuable. They are good players who put up great statistics, except Paul Goldschmidt doesn't have David Price, Edwin Encarnacion, Jose Bautista and and Russell Martin on his team. Here's a question for Murray. If Josh Donaldson put up the exact same numbers, but played for the Diamondbacks, does he believe the Diamondbacks would then make the playoffs while the Blue Jays with Goldschmidt would miss the playoffs? If he does, he is stupid because that's ridiculous, and if he doesn't, then how does it make sense for Donaldson to be suddenly less valuable because he plays for a Diamondbacks team that stinks? 

Once more these analysts, whether or not they realized it, were mistaking “best” for “most valuable.”

Once more Murray Chass, whether he realizes it or not, doesn't understand that the argument is over how to evaluate what makes a player so valuable. 

Despite the Nationals’ effort to undermine Harper’s chances, they have been in post-season contention and continue to be even if they have been shoved to the fringe, and Harper has been the primary reason.

He leads the league in batting average (.337), on-base (.469) and slugging (.647) percentages and runs scored (100), is second in walks (106) and total bases (280) and is third in home runs (33) and extra-base hits (67).

And so, if Harper puts up those numbers with the Blue Jays then he is an MVP candidate. Same numbers, different team. All of a sudden Harper is more valuable because his teammates are more talented. My point is this doesn't make sense to judge Harper on his team's ability to win games. Sure, factor it in a small amount, but don't dismiss his candidacy because the Nationals are better at talking about how good they are at winning games than they are at actually winning games. 

Some other names to consider for the N.L. award, though no likely winner in the bunch:

Anthony Rizzo and Kris Bryant of the Cubs, Matt Carpenter and Jason Heyward of the Cardinals, Curtis Granderson of the Mets, Adrian Gonzalez of the Dodgers and Buster Posey of the Giants.

Harper's numbers are below. Here are other candidates for MVP (and their stats around the time Murray wrote this post) who play for winning teams and therefore are more valuable than Harper:

Harper: .337/.469/.647, 100 runs, 106 walks, 280 total bases, 33 home runs, 67 extra base hits.

Rizzo: .276/.386/.516, 84 runs, 71 walks, 271 total bases, 29 home runs, 65 extra base hits.

Bryant: .270/.364/.486, 79 runs, 68 walks, 243 total bases, 24 home runs, 55 extra base hits.

Carpenter: .261/.360/.468, 85 runs, 77 walks, 242 total bases, 22 home runs, 61 extra base hits.

Heyward: .293/.355/.466, 72 runs, 47 walks, 222 total bases, 12 home runs, 48 extra base hits.

Granderson: .259/.366/.454, 88 runs, 85 walks, 240 total bases, 23 home runs, 55 extra base hits.

Gonzalez: .280/.356/.493, 73 runs, 58 walks, 259 total bases, 27 home runs, 58 extra base hits.

Posey: .328/.392/.487, 70 runs, 54 walks, 245 total bases, 18 home runs, 44 extra base hits.

Notice something? I do. Bryce Harper is better than every one of these other MVP candidates in every single category Murray listed. Not one of these other candidates beats Harper in any category, except one, and that category is "Will his team make the playoffs?" So obviously, (notice two teams have multiple players on this list as "most valuable") Bryce Harper isn't as valuable as these other players. After all, how could Anthony Rizzo benefit from having Kris Bryant in the lineup with him everyday? Inconceivable. So yeah, Harper should be the NL MVP.

And then there’s Andrew McCutchen of the Pirates, the 2013 MVP. He started the season at a standstill, batting .194 in April with .302 on-base and .333 slugging percentages. However, he proceeded to fuel the Pirates third consecutive wild-card bid, culminating in his N.L. player-of-the-month August in which he batted .348 with .470 on-base and .609 slugging percentages.

A similar September with the Pirates clinching a post-season spot could make McCutchen a formidable challenger to Harper if Harper is unable to spark the Nationals into the post-season.

McCutchen: .298/.397/.502, 86 runs, 80 walks, 258 total bases, 22 home runs, 58 extra base hits.

Murray can hide behind the fact these other players are just as qualified, but it simply isn't true. The only difference in the MVP candidacy of Harper and these other 8 players is Harper's team isn't going to make the playoffs, so that makes him "less valuable" despite his performance exceeding the performance of every other serious NL MVP candidate.

With Trout sinking slowly – or rapidly with the Angels in the West – the A.L. MVP award should go to Josh Donaldson, the Toronto third baseman, however the Blue Jays get to the playoffs.

Donaldson has had a lot of help from Edwin Encarnacion and Jose Bautista – and I’ve always felt that the more good players a team has the less valuable each one is – but Donaldson has been too overwhelming to ignore. He plays a pretty good third base, too.

Murray has always felt the more good players a team has the less valuable each one is, but he's going to totally ignore his own beliefs in favor of the belief that no player whose team isn't going to make the playoffs should win the MVP. It seems Murray only has one belief, no matter how much he denies it, and that belief is a player can't win the MVP award if his team isn't going to make the playoffs. 

Acquired from Oakland last November for Brett Lawrie in what has to be one of Billy Beane’s worst trades, Donaldson leads the A.L. in runs batted in (112), runs scored (104), total bases (304) and extra-base hits (74), is second in slugging (.581) and third in home runs (36).

Trout, last season’s A.L. MVP, has not disappeared completely in this season’s MVP contest. He is second in on-base percentage (.396), fourth in slugging (.575), tied for fourth in runs (87), sixth in home runs (33) and third in total bases (277), extra-base hits (63) and walks (73).

I don't really care if Trout gets the MVP or not. Donaldson is pretty deserving, and believe it or not, I try not to get too worked up over stupid awards. I don't think Trout's candidacy for AL MVP should be downgraded because the team around him isn't as good as the team around Donaldson. I'm betting the Blue Jays would have as good of a record as they do now if they replaced Donaldson with Trout. It's just a guess, but just don't downgrade Trout's candidacy based on his team's performance. That's what aggravates me.

Joining teammate Alex Rodriguez in a twin comeback, Teixeira was a primary force in the Yankees’ surprising run for the post-season, if not the division title.

Injuries limited the first baseman to 123 games each last season and in 2012 and to 15 games in 2013. But he came back healthy this season, hitting 31 home runs and driving in 79 runs in 111 games. His production and contribution both offensively and defensively warranted MVP consideration.

Plus, the Yankees were going to make the playoffs, which automatically makes Teixeira more valuable than if he had put up similar numbers on a team that wasn't going to make the playoffs. Obviously, this makes sense. Murray is one of those BBWAA voters who is able to think, so if you think about it in non-Stat Geek terms then you see it makes sense to base an individual award on a team's performance around that individual. 

Missing much of the last six weeks of the season, if not all of the games that remained, doesn’t work well for an MVP candidate, especially when his team is in a division race and a playoff race.

Unless his team makes the playoffs and every other MVP candidate's team didn't make the playoffs. Then the player who was injured for six weeks all of a sudden becomes more valuable because the team around him was more valuable and he will be handed the MVP. Obviously.

Worse, Teixeira has lost a chance to win an unusual double – MVP and comeback player of the year.

Can the Comeback Player of the Year be awarded to a player who is on a team that doesn't make the playoffs? After all, how can the player comeback from anything if he doesn't make a difference for his team when he does comeback? 

Posey won both in 2012 after suffering a broken leg and torn ankle ligaments in a home plate collision the previous season.

The same Buster Posey who was kept in the minors long enough to avoid being a Super-2 and Murray went on and on about how this wasn't fair to the Giants fans to keep Posey in the minors. Then it turns out Giants fans weren't negatively impacted at all, because the Giants won the World Series, and Giants fans knew that after Posey broke his leg and tore ligaments that the team could keep him for an extra season because he was kept in the minors for a few extra weeks.

Wednesday, October 7, 2015

3 comments MMQB Review: Peter Doesn't Think the NFL Should Stretch Deflategate Into 2016, Even Though He Suggested Multiple Times the NFL Should Do Just That Edition

Last week Peter King talked about how Andy Dalton is playing well in the regular season this year and how this may mean something for the playoffs or it may not mean anything at all. One thing it does mean is that Andy Dalton is playing well, but it doesn't mean Peter will get off Dalton's ass about not playing well in the playoffs until the Bengals actually make it back to the playoffs and Dalton plays at a high level. Because Dalton is the only young quarterback who hasn't played in the playoffs and all. I'm not going to go overboard making excuses for Dalton, but he didn't exactly have a lot of offensive weapons against the Colts in the playoffs last season. This week, Peter hands out awards from the first quarter of the season, talks about how screwed the Ravens are at the wide receiver position (it turns out even they can't continuously replace players they lose in free agency), has a travel note where someone else did the traveling, and because he likes craft beers he's amazed that craft beers only make up 8% of the United States beer market. I'll file this under, "I'm amazed that everyone doesn't like the things that I like," which is very typical Peter King way of thinking.

The football season always flies. (Easy for someone writing on a laptop, not tackling someone, to say.) But we’re already through 24 percent of the regular season, and this column will focus on some truths—bitter, euphoric, surprising, real—and some consequences after four intriguing weekends. 

I'm going to write the same shit I always do. We are still only 25% of the way through the season. There are still no truths. Last year at this time, Tom Brady's eulogy was still being written. Two years ago the Chiefs and the Broncos were going to meet at the midpoint of the season with both teams undefeated. Even four weeks into the season the truths still aren't truths yet.

New England is the best team in the league. Tom Brady has come back with a vengeance, and I’d be surprised if they finish worse than 14-2. Toughest games left: Jets in October, Broncos in November, Jets in December. 

In November, Peter will probably write something like "Nobody knew it in early October, but the Patriots game against Team X has suddenly become an important game" as if nothing can change over the next month. 

In the NFC, Green Bay is the best. Four wins by at least eight points, a quarterback who will never throw an interception the rest of his life, and a sneaky good defense averaging 4.3 sacks a game. 

There could very well be a correlation there. Green Bay is beating teams by a large margin, which means teams are passing the ball against the Packers, which means the Packers defense doesn't have to necessarily defend against the run and can pin their ears back and rush the passer. Hence, the Packers defense could average 4.3 sacks a game because they are beating teams by a lot and don't have to defend the run. 

While we’re at it, here’s the First Quarter MVP ballot.

1. Tom Brady, QB, New England. No franchise wideout, and running backs Bill Belichick picked out of a hat.
 

2. Aaron Rodgers, QB, Green Bay. Value increased by playing so well without Jordy Nelson.
 

3. DeMarcus Ware, OLB, Denver. Reborn under Wade Phillips. Watt-like impact, with so much help from his mates.
 

4. Andy Dalton, QB, Cincinnati. Stop laughing. Average yards per pass play: Dalton 10.2, Rodgers 8.1.
 

5. Matt Ryan, QB, Atlanta. Classic case of “makes everyone around him better.” 

I think another NFC South quarterback is missing from this list (which I don't care about individual awards, just pointing out my belief), especially if a player's value increases by not having his best receiver healthy. I'd say this other NFC South quarterback makes the  people around him better too.

PATs missed in 256 games last year: eight. PATs missed in 62 games this year, with the scrimmage line moved back 13 yards: 17. This was a particularly brutal weekend, with 10 kicks missed from 40 yards and in (six field goals, four extra points). Missing two on Thursday night cost Josh Scobee his job in Pittsburgh, and don’t be surprised to see rookie Kyle Brindza, who missed five in the past two Bucs games, walk the plank in Tampa.

That's terrible. "Walk the plank in Tampa." Also, never stop reminding your readers every week as often as possible the new PAT rule is totally working.

I think the trend has to do with the youth at the position—12 of 32 teams are using kickers in their first years with their teams—and the mental game the longer PAT has forced kickers to deal with.

Maybe there is a mental game with the longer PAT, but a 33-yard attempt isn't exactly tough for an NFL kicker to hit.

Joe Philbin’s got to go. One of the nicest coaches I’ve ever met, with a team that’s killing him. Count the ways: Outscored 37-3 in first quarters this year, a defensive front making a jillion dollars with one measly sack in four games, a quarterback playing tentatively, and losses by a combined 40 the past eight days to the two division teams—the Bills and Jets—their owner was counting on Miami to have vaulted past. 

It's almost like giving franchise QB money to a defensive tackle wasn't the best idea or something. Maybe Tannehill needs another upgrade on the offensive line, because the Dolphins have done what they could go surround him with offensive weapons at tight end and wide receiver.

The Eagles have (crash-) landed. Chip Kelly overestimated a few things and/or people: Sam Bradford’s ability to resume his career at a high level after two bad knee injuries,

(Bengoodfella sadly looks at himself in the mirror for choosing the Eagles in the Super Bowl).

Yet another brilliant personnel move by Jeff Fisher. The Rams know what they are doing. Watch out Los Angeles, you are getting a team on the rise!

the ability of ex-Seahawk Byron Maxwell to be a shutdown cornerback for $10.5 million a year.

Spending a lot of money in free agency is just dumb in general. It's how guys get overpaid. I get the urge to spend, but spending a lot of money in free agency just doesn't seem like a smart way to build a winning team.

Pretty weird to see Peyton Manning rated 25th in the league, with six touchdowns and five interceptions. His arm’s not what it was even last October. But the Broncos are 4-0, and Manning finds a way to throw enough completions. He’ll be favored, incredibly, to enter November 6-0 with the Raiders, Browns and the bye coming the rest of this month. 

That defense is pretty good though, which helps. How funny would it be if the Broncos won the Super Bowl in a year where Manning isn't close to being his dominant self?

Adrian Peterson, at 30, looks like Adrian Peterson, at 23. See him burst through the stout Denver front and sprint for an uncontested TD Sunday? His 372 rushing yards lead the league. This is a bit of a surprise: He’s won only two rushing titles, in 2008 and 2012, in seven full seasons. My guess is Peterson is pretty well aware of that, and wants to make it about seven before he retires.

Wasn't it just a couple of weeks ago that Peterson "admitted" he didn't feel like he felt when he was younger? Things change quickly.

Deflategate is out of sight, out of mind, sort of … except the league will continue to press its case to suspend Tom Brady for four games, only this time the case will be heard in 2016. The logical sentiment is to say, “Drop it.” Goodell and the league won’t do it, because so many teams around the league think Brady did something. But the league hasn’t proven its case. And stretching the battle into 2016 is not going to find the league more answers. 

Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait...Peter writes "stretching the battle into 2016 is not going to find the league more answers"? This is something he truly believes? At the beginning of this NFL season, Peter's suggestion to Roger Goodell and the NFL was to let Brady play this entire 2015 season, measure the inflation of each ball during games to get the average deflation in cold weather and then rule on Brady's playing status for the 2016 season based on these results.

Peter King believed the resolution to the Patriots deflating footballs was to stretch the battle into 2016. That WAS his solution. Now, he believes the NFL hasn't proven it's case and should just end the fight now. How can Peter write the NFL shouldn't stretch the battle into 2016 when he thought the NFL SHOULD stretch the battle into 2016 in order to properly resolve whether Tom Brady should be suspended for four games or not?

Four most surprising teams (good):

1. Atlanta (4-0). A year and a half ago, no one in Atlanta had heard of Devonta Freeman and Dan Quinn. Times change.

False. People knew who Dan Quinn was because he was the defensive coordinator for one of the greatest defenses in NFL history that just won a Super Bowl. But yeah, go ahead and re-write history in order to further your own short terms narratives. Whatever works for you.

4. New England (3-0). Not because they’re here and they’re good … but because they’re hammering teams as they did in 2007, and Tom Brady is quarterbacking like he did in 2007. 

But again, Peter is not comparing the 2015 Patriots to the 2007 Patriots because it's way too early to do something silly like that. Peter doesn't want to compare the two teams, but he's going to go ahead and do it.

• Four most disappointing teams:

2. Kansas City (1-3). In the last three games, the Chiefs are surrendering 35 points a game.

4. Miami (1-3). Here because of apparent utter hopelessness.

I guess this depends on your definition of "disappointing." Alex Smith is great managing a game (I know, that's mean to say and I shouldn't say it), while I didn't expect the Dolphins to do too much this year.

Now we know why Gurley went 10th

I'm not smart at all, but I knew why already. He's a stud. You know what I'm going to say about the Rams. Team on the rise! Give Jeff Fisher that contract extension and it's all downhill from there. I mean, uphill, it's all uphill. Wait, if it is "downhill" then that means things are bad, right? But going "uphill" means things are more difficult. Now I'm confused. Just give Jeff Fisher a contract extension.

“I got one game ball!” St. Louis coach Jeff Fisher said in the Rams’ locker room. “Where’s 30? Thirty! Come up!”

Fisher handed Gurley, No. 30, the football.

“This is just the beginning,” Fisher said.

JUST THE BEGINNING, RAMS FANS! JUST THE BEGINNING!

(The Rams pack up their bags and leave for Los Angeles)

Afterward, what everyone was marveling about was the eight yards Gurley didn’t gain...

Gurley took a handoff from Nick Foles and darted left, through some traffic around left end and down the field. He didn’t need an escort. He broke into the clear past some exhausted but pursuing Cardinals, and as he galloped down the left sideline—looking so much like the man he was compared to a hundred times pre-draft, Peterson—teammate Tavon Austin started waving him downfield toward his first NFL touchdown. A Cardinal safety, Tony Jefferson, was all that stood between him and the touchdown.

Then Gurley slowed a bit. He didn’t appear hurt, but maybe he tweaked something as he slowed some more and lowered himself to the ground inside the 10, falling at the 8-yard line.

Did he die? Did he have a heart attack? Had I never watched a game of football in my life, these might be questions I would ponder. Alas, the answer is more obvious than Peter thinks.

He wasn’t hurt. 

HE WASN'T?

Before the play, Gurley knew Arizona had no timeouts left, and he knew if he could get the first down and kill some clock, the Rams would be able to run the clock out without Arizona touching the ball again. If he scored with 65 seconds to play, what would happen if the Rams missed the extra point? They’d have an eight-point lead, and would be kicking to one of the most explosive offenses in football. Lying down inside the 10? A no-brainer.

Apparently it wasn't a no-brainer, because Peter just got done writing some dramatics surrounding exactly why Gurley hit the ground inside the 10-yard line. It's a no-brainer, but Peter wants to be a drama queen and act like Gurley was hurt when he hit the ground.

Gurley shouldn’t get a medal for that. He should get some appreciation for making the smart play in that situation.

Plus, Peter would like to drum up a little drama about Gurley allowing the Rams to run the clock out rather than scoring. It's a no-brainer and he shouldn't get a medal, but Peter extends this story out further than it should be extended and said people were marveling at Gurley for having the presence of mind to hit the ground. But really, IT'S NO BIG DEAL!

After his debut—six carries, nine yards last week—Gurley was hearing from those around the team that he’ll be fine, don’t worry, better days are ahead. He knew it. The lack of impact wasn’t a big deal to him. “Listen,” he said to one team employee, “nobody’s gonna remember my first four games. What’d Adrian Peterson do his first four games?”

Peterson, in his first four games in 2007: 76 carries, 383 yards.

Gurley’s right: No one remembers. But for the record, Gurley’s got 228 yards to get in the next two games if he wants to catch up. I doubt he's too concerned with chasing yards like that—he gave up eight, and a touchdown, that he could have had pretty easily in his coming-out party.

It's his second NFL game. Let's just take a step back. He's probably going to be great, but let's simmer down a bit based on one week's production. 

The last hurrah for Hasselbeck—unless, of course, there’s another

This is the last time this thing occurs, unless it occurs again.

Top notch writing here.

Until Sunday in Indianapolis, Colts backup quarterback Matt Hasselbeck hadn’t started an NFL game since Nov. 4, 2012, when he quarterbacked Tennessee to a bit of an ignominious loss—51-20 at home to Chicago. Sunday’s start, against Jacksonville, was a little different. He was keeping the seat warm for Andrew Luck while the young phenom sat out the game with a shoulder injury that made it painful for him to throw.

Plus, the Colts were playing Jacksonville at home. So you know, that shoulder thing was pretty painful for Luck. But, I mean, if there is a game for him to miss...

That’s a span of 1,064 days between starts, if my math is correct. A local reporter actually asked Hasselbeck about whether he’d be ready to play Thursday night at Houston if needed, and told him it’d been 1,062 days between starts. When I asked him the same question Sunday night, Hasselbeck gave me the same answer: “It might be another 1,062, 1,064, whatever days, till I’m ready again. This isn’t easy.”

Yeah, Hasselbeck will be very much retired before he gets a chance to start again after a 1,064 day break between starts. 

Hasselbeck had his 40th birthday 10 days ago, and he knows he’ll have only three days to be ready if Luck’s not ready to go. “Everyone in our locker room, and everyone in the state of Indiana, hopes he’s ready to go,” Hasselbeck said. “Everyone expects him to be ready, including me. I’ll probably be playing scout team quarterback again this week.”

Hopefully he can do an impression of Brian Hoyer or Ryan Mallett to get the Colts defense prepared. I mean, maybe Hasselbeck can pretend to be limited in his ability to throw the football well and make a few bad passes in practice to get the Colts defense prepared.

Both are pocket guys, but Luck, certainly, can move around the backfield more at this stage of his career than Hasselbeck can.

And the comparisons between Matt Hasselbeck and Andrew Luck begin and end with "They are both white and are pocket guys." Other than those two things, they are totally separate players. So yes, considering Hasselbeck is old and Andrew Luck is young, it's not surprising Luck moves around in the pocket better. 

“It was really fun running out of the tunnel,” Matt Hasselbeck said. “I was so jacked up. I felt like William Wallace in Braveheart. I sort of lost my composure, and the first two passes I threw were waaaaay off-target.

Hopefully Matt Hasselbeck ran out of the locker room with pants on, which isn't something the real William Wallace would have done. He would have had nothing on under his kilt/whatever the fuck it is you want to call it.

And suuuuuuuuuuuure, that's why your first two passes were way off-target. Blake Bortles thought they were accurate and even wrote down in his diary that he needs to learn to throw the ball like you threw your first two passes.

The only other problem: In Seattle and Tennessee, the quarterback always entered the huddle next to the left tackle. In Indianapolis, the quarterback enters the huddle always so that he is on the side of the Colts’ sideline. “Get in the right place!” Hasselbeck was told a few times.

What? Hasselbeck was forced to play football that counts, wear pants AND he had to remember to enter the huddle from the right side of the huddle? Man, life as a backup quarterback is tougher than it sounds. You have to remember the playbook and remember which way to enter the huddle. I mean, at the same time you have to remember these things?

Questions about the league’s international zeal

… with Mark Waller, the NFL’s executive vice president/international, after the Jets-Dolphins game at Wembley Stadium Sunday.

Peter writes about games overseas, all I read is "One of 8 home games per year taken away (preseason doesn't count and if you say it does then shame on you) from football fans in a certain city so the NFL can try to expand on the backs of American football fans."

I don't mind overseas games, but NFL fans only get 8 home games a year. It annoys me one is lost in a desperate attempt to gain more exposure for the NFL overseas. Apparently it's okay to take American football fans for granted.

The MMQB: The owners meet this week in New York. Will you announce your schedule of games for next year—and will that include a game somewhere other than London?

Waller: We aren’t ready to announce the schedule quite yet. Our current agreement with the owners expires in 2016 for international games, so we’re going to ask them this week for an extension of the current agreement through 2025. On top of that, we’ll be asking for a resolution to allow the International Committee the ability to schedule games in other countries without going back to owners for approval.

At some point with the obvious goal being that the Jacksonville Jaguars will play in London, but fans in Jacksonville will be paying for season tickets to see the Jags play, except they never actually get to see them play. The NFL isn't a monster, they won't force Jags fans to pay for preseason games of course. Otherwise, the goal is for fans in the United States to pay for season tickets in order to see an NFL team play that plays their home games in a different country. 

The MMQB: Germany, Mexico and Brazil, among other countries, have been mentioned. Any decisions?

Waller: Those are all good candidates. We have visited those places. Germany is helped by the infrastructure from the World Cup [Germany hosted in 2006], and Brazil is helped by the too. Brazil also has excellent facilities with the Olympics being there [in 2016]. Both of those places have world-class stadiums. There is probably a little more work to be done at Azteca Stadium [in Mexico City], which needs some work done on locker rooms and other facilities. The level of interest [outside of England] is exceptionally high.

The interest is high for a couple of games a year. Is the interest outside of England exceptionally high to see ten games that one team plays? Is the interest high enough for fans in other countries to pay for merchandise for that team and support that team when it's a shitty team? 

The MMQB: People around the league I speak to seem really hesitant about putting a franchise in London for a lot of the logistical reasons you’d expect. What’s your gut feeling about the future in Europe—a team or teams there, or a series of games every year?

Waller: I think the nervousness about putting a team there is that you can’t really test it out first—you’ve just got to do it, and then you make it work. Our appeal as a league is that all 32 teams can win. All 32 teams, every year, have a chance.

(Cleveland Browns fans stare down and kick at the dirt for a few seconds and then look up sadly, saying, "Do we have a chance every year? Has this been proven for us?")

When we first put regular-season games here, there was a lot of skepticism about whether this was sustainable. But now [including this year, 13 of 14 Wembley games have been sellouts], whether we put a team in the U.K. is now a legitimate conversation and not the pipe dream it was in 2007.

Yeah, it's your pipe dream. I don't care if there is an NFL team in another city in the United States ever again, much less would I care if the NFL had an international team. This is the NFL's dream, I'm betting not the dream of fans. 

Intriguing Team of the Week

Smart teams survey their situation every week and understand that their roster is a living being. Take the Ravens over the weekend. Baltimore was given life by the Steelers (and Josh Scobee) Thursday night, and the Ravens, even with the lowly mark of 1-3 at the one-quarter mark of the season, know they’re very much alive in a flawed AFC.

This is unlike NFL, which is totally flawless. Naturally. Of course. Sometimes I think Peter just writes words and doesn't think about what he's writing. 

One problem: Baltimore’s group of receivers is decimated, even after the trade of a seventh-round pick in 2018 Saturday for St. Louis wideout Chris Givens.

What? Chris Givens wasn't the cure-all for the Ravens receiving woes? He probably isn't going to thrive now that he's not with the Rams anymore. That Jeff Fisher sure knows how to get the best out of his players. Look at what type of player Tood Gurley has become. 

the Ravens might have to use some of their draft capital—or maybe even a relatively superfluous good player—to get another receiver before the Nov. 3 trading deadline. In fact, much sooner than that, probably. It’s not that GM Ozzie Newsome would be in panic mode. It’s more like realism mode.

And the difference in "panic mode" and "realism mode" is your perspective. Trading draft picks for players in the middle of the season is realistic, but it's also a bit of a panic move knowing that Joe Flacco has to have some receivers to throw to. Panic and realism can go hand-in-hand, depending on how the person doing the writing wants to portray it. 

Four reasons why I would not be remotely surprised if the Ravens’ weekend trade is not their last deal for a receiver this month:

1. Because they don't have very many good receivers healthy.

2. They don't have healthy wide receivers.

3. Joe Flacco has to throw the ball to someone.

4. The Ravens lack healthy wide receivers with NFL experience.

1. Baltimore’s not afraid. The Ravens have made nine player trades in the past 29 months, including the deal for starting tackle Eugene Monroe two years ago this weekend. If they’ve got a hole, the way they still do at wide receiver, they usually try to fill it, even during the season.

Baltimore is afraid. They are afraid they don't have experienced NFL wide receivers on the roster. It's not about being afraid or not being afraid. The Ravens need to find experienced wide receivers right now. It's either find some veterans that aren't currently employed (and probably for good reason) or make a trade. 

4. Look at Baltimore’s draft depth they can deal from in 2016. The Ravens, if compensatory pick projections are correct, have four fourth-round picks in the 2016 draft.

And when have compensatory pick projections ever been wrong? 

Four of those should be Compensatory Picks for lost unrestricted free agents—in the fourth, fourth and fifth rounds, and one other undisclosed round depending on the performance of quarterback Tyrod Taylor in Buffalo. (The other fourth-rounder came in a package from Denver in exchange for center Gino Gradkowski in the off-season.)

Of those four picks, only two of them can be traded. And really, the problem isn't having draft picks to go trade for a receiver, but to find a quality receiver whose team is willing to trade him. It doesn't happen too often, even if the Ravens are dangling a fourth round pick in return. 

So what does Baltimore do? Look for a forward-thinking GM with receiver depth, or in selling mode. Chicago GM Ryan Pace, with wideout Eddie Royal. Seattle GM John Schneider, with Ricardo Lockette. Washington GM Scot McCloughan, with Andre Roberts (a surprise inactive Sunday because of two recent drops).

Here is another issue I'm not sure that Peter has thought of. Would the Ravens really trade a fourth round pick for any of these three receivers? I would think not, but I could be wrong. Maybe they could finagle a trade that involves a fourth round pick, but I wouldn't give a fourth round pick for any of these receivers, even if I expected to get other compensatory picks in the fourth round.

“No. Not at all. I’m worried about getting this team straightened out, fixed.”

—Miami coach Joe Philbin, asked if he was concerned about getting fired in the bye week after his team started 1-3.

Joe Philbin wasn't worried because he knew he was being fired and he's still getting paid for not coaching the Dolphins. It's not like he can't find a coordinator position somewhere. 

“We give you scholarships, we give you stipends and meals and a place to live! We give you nice uniforms! I can’t give you guts, and I can’t give you heart! Tonight, it was BYOG! Bring your own guts, and they brought some guts and some heart!”

—Clemson coach Dabo Sweeney, in a barely audible-above-the-din ESPN on-field interview after Clemson 24, Notre Dame 22.

I pretty much hate how Dabo says "we give you scholarships, we give you stipends and meals and a place to live." Actually these players EARNED the scholarships and the value of the stipends, meals and place to live pales in comparison to the amount of income the school makes on the back of these players. So go fuck yourself, Dabo Sweeney. Don't act like the players are all charity cases and the school is doing them the favor. 

OFFENSIVE PLAYERS OF THE WEEK

Todd Gurley, running back, St. Louis. After Gurley’s inauspicious debut last week, coach Jeff Fisher said that trained eyes could see he was close to breaking some of his runs. Fisher evidently knew what he was talking about.

Yes, Fisher clearly knew what he was talking about when he said the #10 pick in the draft at a position that doesn't have a big learning curve was a good football player. Just another brilliant move by Fisher. Yes, "trained eyes" could see Gurley was close to breaking some runs. Those trained eyes that saw him play in college, knew Gurley was coming off major knee surgery and had only appeared in one NFL game so far. 

He ran 19 times for 146 yards, and did the smart thing on the final insurance drive, going to the ground instead of running into the end zone. Gurley knew the Cardinals wouldn’t get to touch the ball again if he played it that way.

But again, this was a no-brainer play that doesn't deserve a medal. Naturally, Peter brings it up again and awards Gurley "Offensive Player of the Week" partly because of this play. 

For one day at least, it looks like a brilliant pick.

Which could be said about any number of NFL players. Todd Gurley was the best player in this draft for my money, so his success will be no shock to me. Of course, anything good a Rams draft pick does is going to be excessively drooled over by Peter. Gurley is a stud, no doubt, but Peter is also going to remind us of Gurley's skills as often as possible. He does this due to his connections to the Rams organization. 

DEFENSIVE PLAYERS OF THE WEEK

T.J. Ward, strong safety, Denver. A great pass rush needs not just a speedy front seven but also the ability of players in the secondary to make the occasional impactful blitz. That’s one of the reasons GM John Elway imported Ward from Cleveland a year and a half ago, and it really showed at the key moment of Sunday’s 23-20 survival test at home against Minnesota.

Regarding my comments about free agency earlier in this post, it's not true for every single defender. There can be quality found. Still, Ward didn't sign a huge contract with the Broncos (4 years $23 million), so I wouldn't really count him as a big free agent signing. He's just a really good free agent signing. 

SPECIAL TEAMS PLAYERS OF THE WEEK

Cairo Santos, kicker, Kansas City.

Justin Tucker, kicker, Baltimore. Tucker scored the last nine points of a game the Ravens needed desperately, and he did it in a stadium that is notoriously rough for kickers.

Peter talks about how NFL kickers are struggling this year and then names two kickers as his "Special Teams Players of the Week."

Peter even put a fine point on it in this MMQB about how bad the field goal kicking has been in the NFL this year. Except, as Bill Barnwell shows, this isn't exactly true. When faced with this evidence, Peter just ignored it and continued thinking what he wanted to think.




I guess that's settled then.

It was supposed to take Jim Harbaugh a while—or, at least longer than five games—to turn around the Michigan football fortunes.

• Michigan, 2014: 5-7. Average score: Opponents 22.4, Michigan 20.9

• Michigan, 2015: 4-1. Average score: Michigan 27.8, Opponents 7.6.

Was it supposed to take a long time for Jim Harbaugh to turn Michigan around? There was never a question of whether Jim Harbaugh could coach or not. The question is whether he can stick around in one place long enough to not irritate his players and management. 

Factoid of the Week That May Interest Only Me

Atlanta has the most advantageous remaining schedule of any team in the NFL. The Falcons do not play a team with a current winning record for the next nine weeks, and only one of their remaining foes (Carolina, twice) has a winning record this morning. The Atlanta slate:

Week 5: Washington (2-2)
Week 6: at New Orleans (1-3)
Week 7: at Tennessee (1-2)
Week 8: Tampa Bay (1-3)
Week 9: at San Francisco (1-3)
Week 10: Bye
Week 11: Indianapolis (2-2)
Week 12: Minnesota (2-2)
Week 13: at Tampa Bay (1-3)
Week 14: at Carolina (4-0)
Week 15: at Jacksonville (1-3)
Week 16: Carolina (4-0).
Week 17: New Orleans (1-3)

Two things that annoy me about this, while admitting this statistic is certainly currently true.

1. These records can change drastically over the next few weeks. That Carolina 4-0 record could be 5-7 when the teams meet in Week 14. The Colts could be 7-2 when the Falcons meet them in Week 11 or the Saints could be 12-3 when the teams meet in Week 17. Records change over the year. So the schedule could be this easy or it could be more difficult than this. Maybe the Falcons from Week 11-Week 17 have to play a 7-2 Colts team, a 7-3 Vikings team, a 8-3 Panthers team and a 12-3 Saints team. Who knows?

2. Even if the Falcons have the most advantageous schedule now, even if the schedule stays this easy, this doesn't mean another NFL team doesn't end up with the most advantageous schedule over the last 13 weeks of the season.

Mr. Starwood Preferred Member Travel Note of the Week

This will be Ross Tucker’s travel note of the week, seeing as I did not travel anywhere in the past seven days.

Of course, because the only thing more interesting than hearing about someone else's travel experience is hearing someone else talk about another person's travel experience.

"LET ME SHOW YOU PICTURES OF THIS VACATION MY FRIEND WENT ON!"

Tucker is the second-most famous person from Wyomissing, Pa.

Chad Henne is pissed he's not as famous as Ross Tucker. 

The first is Taylor Swift. And the night before the football game, lo and behold, Swift was playing Bridgestone Arena in Nashville. Tucker knows Taylor Swift’s father, and texted him, and they met up. Scott Swift gave Tucker and his wife tickets and backstage passes, and they met Taylor Swift before the show.

Because after the show Taylor Swift had to drink the blood of pigs, as her deal with the Devil requires her to do nightly at exactly 11:15pm. 

1. Twitter followers for the two Wyomissing natives, as of 6 p.m. Saturday:

• Taylor Swift: 64,289,150.
 

• Ross Tucker: 141,058.

Still plenty of time to catch up, Ross. You’ve got your whole life ahead of you.

And apparently Taylor Swift, who is like 14 years old or something, is going to die soon? Or is Peter threatening Taylor Swift's life in an effort to make Ross Tucker the most famous person from Wyomissing, Pa? Peter will murder Taylor Swift, grind her body up in an oversized blender and then use the resulting liquid to make an absolutely delicious Belgian White Ale.


There is nothing explicable about Andy Benoit. Everything, including his success, has been inexplicable. I don't understand why anyone would listen to his opinions or why I should even consider his opinions. He watches a lot of tape, but I'm confused as to what makes him more qualified for his job compared to any other football writer who watches a lot of tape. I don't get it and may never get it.

Ten Things I Think I Think

1. I think this is what I liked about Week 4:

a. Devonta Freeman. What burst and power.

And to think, he's not at all supposed to be a full-time running back for the Falcons. The Falcons were all like, "We will draft him in the fourth round, but don't expect him to do much for us."

b. The fight of the Rams.

Peter King is doing all he can to give Jeff Fisher credit without making it obvious he is trying very hard to give Jeff Fisher credit. Very covert of him. I'm not falling for it. The Rams can be a good team. Jeff Fisher isn't a very good coach, especially for how much he is paid compared to what he has delivered.

l. The vanquished Carson Palmer with this line on the Rams’ defense, which was formidable: “Very good front, very good defense. They do just enough to keep you on your toes every snap.”

I would present this without comment, but that's not my style. I mean, keep doing your thing Peter. No one is noticing, I'm sure. Doing "just enough" is pretty much the mantra for the entire Jeff Fisher era in St. Louis and Tennessee. Doing "just enough" to not get fired. Doing "just enough" to keep the team somewhat competitive. Doing "just enough" to make no one notice your career coaching record isn't that impressive. 

m. The Baltimore personnel department, with undrafted free agent James Hurst doing a good job—including a crushing block on Cameron Heyward on a first-half third-and-1 conversion in Pittsburgh—and 2013 fifth-rounder Ricky Wagner, the right tackle, saving a touchdown on a Steeler interception return.

Maybe the Ravens should trade one of these guys for a wide receiver...

o. Justin Forsett looking like the 2014 Justin Forsett: 27 carries, 150 yards.

But Forsett didn't make the brilliant play that was a no-brainer of lying down in the field of play so the clock keeps running and the opposing team can't get the ball back on offense, so he doesn't merit much of a mention except a sentence. Gurley falling to the ground inbounds wasn't that great of a play in the opinion of Peter King, but he'll keep talking about it anyway. 

2. I think this is what I didn’t like about Week 4:

a. Kickers.

It's not as bad as you are making it out to be, Peter. Even if you don't want to pay attention to the reality, at least try to acknowledge reality says something you don't personally believe to be true. 

d. Ndamukong Suh. Check out when Jets running back Chris Ivory muscled through Suh at the line of scrimmage in the second quarter and ran for a gain of 17 … and watch Suh jogging after him, not sprinting.

It's almost like paying franchise quarterback money for a defensive tackle, especially when you already have a quarterback you consider to be a franchise quarterback and you have to pay him too, isn't the best of ideas. 

i. There’s a reason Caleb Sturgis was unemployed. In his first game as an Eagle, Sturgis hooked a 33-yard field goal wide left as the clock ran out in the first half, Philly trailing 13-0. Thirty-three yards. That’s the distance of an extra point now.

IS IT, PETER? WHY HAVEN'T YOU MENTIONED AT SOME POINT BEFORE NOW THAT THE EXTRA POINT HAS BEEN MOVED BACK?

o. I guess “Tyrod Taylor: A Football Life” is on hold by NFL Network.

Yes Peter, let's mock people for getting all excited about a player after he had a few good games. That would be a perfect thing to do if you had absolutely zero self-awareness isn't it? 

p. Trying to read Bill O’Brien’s mind. My best guess would be: “Perhaps I made a mistake, yanking Hoyer five games too soon.”

q. I mean, Brian Hoyer’s warming up and it’s 35-0 Atlanta, and O’Brien keeps Ryan Mallett in for the next series.

It's like being around Tom Brady made it seem like Bill O'Brien was more ready to be a head coach than he really was. That could never happen though, could it Charlie Weis, Romeo Crennel, Josh McDaniels, and Eric Mangini? 

4. I think I love the three 9:30 a.m. ET starts this year. The next two London games are at that time—Buffalo-Jacksonville Oct. 25 (live-streamed around the world in all but the home markets), and Detroit-Kansas City Nov. 1. It’s like a free game to watch. But you know what I loved? That 11:35 p.m. ET San Diego-Oakland game a couple of years ago, giving the West Coast a real prime time game—and giving the nocturnal fans on the East Coast one last bite of the apple before Monday morning. It’s not likely to ever return, though, because the national ratings for the game aren’t as good late at night as they would be at other times of the day.

That's a great idea, Peter. Those late games that NFL fans weren't able/didn't choose to watch, the NFL should do more of those games for a specific subset of people. Sure, the East Coast can normally watch these 11:35pm games if they wanted to at an earlier time of the day, but what's the fun in that? 

5. I think, for $114 million, Ndamukong Suh could make more of an effort to help the Dolphins get out of the rut, both on an off the field. On the field: According to Pro Football Focus, he’s been on the field for 129 passing downs, and gotten zero sacks and one quarterback hit in four games.

Pretty soon I'm going to start researching to see if Ndamukong Suh ever did anything to hurt Greg Schiano's career advancement. I mean, Peter has reason to criticize Suh, but it's getting ridiculous. Is Suh the new Josh Freeman? 

7. I think this is what I hear from a longtime NFL scout who has been to Columbus, Ohio, in the first month of the college football season: “Depending on who comes out, they could have eight first-round draft picks. I honestly believe that could be the most talented college team I have ever scouted.” Maybe not if the guy watched Ohio State 34, Indiana 27 on Saturday.

Because this Ohio State team would be the first college team to underachieve with a massive amount of NFL talent on the roster. For example, how did the 2012 Clemson Tigers lose two games when they had a roster of:

Stephone Anthony
Vic Beasley
Taj Boyd
Bashaud Breeland
Martavis Bryant
Chandler Catanzaro
Corey Crawford
Andre Ellington
Dalton Freeman
DeAndre Hopkins
Grady Jarrett
Garry Peters
Brandon Thomas
Sammy Watkins

That doesn't include the 2011 Tigers team that also had Dwayne Allen on it and lost four games. Sometimes talent doesn't mean a team goes perfect or looks great every week. They are college students.

8. I think Mike Mayock made a great point to Rich Eisen the other day about the reaction of the NFL if, say, LSU back Leonard Fournette skipped a year of college football so as not to get hurt before his NFL career began. That’s a thought making the media rounds—that Fournette, not eligible for the draft until 2017, is so good he shouldn’t risk injury in 2016, and simply spend the year training to be an NFL player in ’17. Said Mayock: “I feel very, very, very strongly that for every Leonard Fournette who may be ready, there’s 100 kids who think they’re ready and they’re not. Most [19-year-olds] … are not men yet—physically, emotionally, psychologically.”

It's a great point in theory, but these same kids don't have to wait for Leonard Fournette to take a year off in order to choose to take a year off themselves. Regardless of what Fournette does, these kids who think they are ready and aren't could still take a year off and get ready for the NFL. It's not like they have to wait for Fournette to do it. I think Myles Jack proves this point perfectly. No one had a clue he would declare for the NFL Draft before he did.

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

Then Peter has four thoughts about gun violence, all under different letters in the alphabet in his outline. I really think these thoughts should all be under one letter in his outline, since they are all a part of one line of thought.

f. When I tweeted about this the other night, I got hit with a swarm of, “Give us a plan, genius. What’s your suggestion to stop all the shootings?” I don’t have a plan. It’s not my bailiwick. It’s like this: There’s global warming, and it’s not my field, but I sure want the leaders of the world to do something about it.

And congrats again to the Pope for giving his opinion on things that matter which Peter agrees with and Peter will ignore the Pope's opinion on things that Peter doesn't agree with. 

With the gun violence, it seems like we should make it harder for sick people to get guns; the man who killed in Oregon, Christopher Harper-Mercer, had six guns with him when he laid siege to Umpqua Community College, and seven more were found in his home. Are we as a society fine with that? I know I’m not.

I'm fine with him having 13 guns in his house. I am not fine with him being a crazy person who used those guns to kill people. Therein lies the problem. Who is crazy and who is not crazy? I think the test to determine who can own guns and who can't should be based on who owns music by Maroon 5 and Florida-Georgia Line. That's just me. 

k. Max Scherzer. Wow is about all you can say. Nine innings, no hits, no walks, 17 strikeouts. Two no-nos in one year. And look at his totals in those two games: 18 innings, no hits, no walks, 27 strikeouts. No walks. Two perfect games spoiled by a very, very shaky hit-by-pitch against Pittsburgh and a throwing error on a routine grounder by third baseman Yunel Escobar.

If you are keeping count, which I am, that's three straight Paper World Series titles for the Nationals and two Paper Perfect Games for Max Scherzer this year. The Paper hardware this Nationals team has is ridiculous. 

m. I’m really old. But what can I say? Baseball and football are the two games I grew up with, and when each is finished for the year, I know how much I’ll miss them.

You don't have to be old to miss these things, Peter. Everything doesn't revolve around you and your age. You can be young and miss baseball. Also, baseball isn't done. If you were such a big fan of the sport then perhaps you would enjoy the postseason baseball has. I mean, that is where history tends to be made. 

o. Said it last week, so I’ll use just one sentence for emphasis: The fact that the teams with the second-best and third-best records in baseball—the Pirates (98-64) and the Chicago Cubs (97-65)—are meeting in a sudden-death wild-card playoff game this week instead of a real series is just stupid, and blatantly unfair to two of the three best teams in baseball.

I'll say it again, at no other point in the history of MLB would these two teams even have a chance to meet for even a one game Wild Card playoff. So it can be unfair, but prior to the second Wild Card coming along, the Cubs would have been out of the playoffs entirely. So baseball has always been unfair in this way and I have no idea what Peter is bitching about. In 1993, a 103 win San Francisco team missed the playoffs entirely. A big fan of baseball like Peter might remember this.

u. Coffeenerdness: You know you’ve lived in your Manhattan neighborhood for a long time (four years this month for us)

Peter mentions how long he has lived in Manhattan almost as often as he mentions that he runs in Central Park. If I wasn't reminded weekly, then I might have a chance to forget. 

and frequented the same Starbucks for a long time when you walk in on a Saturday morning, as I did two days ago, and there’s a long line, and you just wait to get to the head of the line and there, the  barista/register person says, “Here you go, Peter—your drink,” and scans my phone for payment. Never even had to order it! Thanks for the great service, people.

Peter loves it when people cater to him. That's great service, you know. When you make Peter King feel as special as Peter believes he should feel, you have done something right. Kudos, Starbucks. You know Peter is special and finally someone acknowledges it through actions.

v. Beernerdness: For a beer note this week, instead of picking a beer to highlight, I’ll pick a Boston Globe story to illustrate how difficult it is becoming to actually pick a beer to drink. I mean, it’s amazing that craft beer is only 8 percent of the United States beer market. Seems like it's 28 percent.

It is shocking that those things which Peter enjoys aren't also enjoyed by the rest of the population. Peter King thought his interests were representative of the United States population as a whole, but he was shockingly wrong. Who knew that just because Peter likes craft beer, everyone else doesn't like craft beer too?

It's amazing that people with less expendable income than Peter would choose to drink beer that costs 40-50% less than craft beer costs. This is your weekly reminder that Peter is not in touch with what the rest of the United States thinks. I like craft beer too, but I recognize it's fucking expensive and just because I choose to spend $15.99 on a 12 pack of beer doesn't mean I am representative of 28% of the United States population.

x. I guess the moral of the story in Athens, Ga., on Saturday was this: It’s probably never a good idea to make Alabama the underdog.

(Insert joke about Georgia football as it relates to the Crimson Tide being underdogs and the Georgia mascot being a bulldog in here) 

The Adieu Haiku

Kickers. Tough life. But
Steeler fans say to Scobee:
“Dude, YOU HAD ONE JOB!”


Yeah dude, you had one job. Much like the one job Peter has in MMQB about reporting on NFL news accurately using the sources he has built up through his 25 year career. Yet somehow, on two of the two biggest non-directly football-related stories over the past year, Peter's sources have lied to him twice. Dude, you had one job. Make sure your sources tell you the truth so you can disseminate accurate information.