Quick blog note. I have had to slow down my posting due to time issues. Mainly, I've had precious little time to write. I post everything in my spare time that doesn't take away from time with my family. It's like a subset of a subset of spare time if you will. So I don't have any real spare time of late and work has made me more busy to where I don't have time to look for terribly written articles at work. So bitching about bad sportswriting is the first thing to go. As terribly written as many of these posts may be grammatically and sentence structure-wise, they do take a little bit of time. It takes effort to write run-on sentences. Sometimes, like writing TMQ and MMQB, they take a lot more than a little bit of time. Finding the right articles takes some time as well and it's just not time I've had recently. So I'm looking to pump it back up to four posts per week and keep coming back to the site.
Denver Broncos beat writers tend to think of some odd ideas this time of year that they believe are necessary to win the Super Bowl. A few years ago, Mike Klis found the key to the Broncos winning the Super Bowl was to lose as many regular season games as possible. This year, Mike Kiszla, with a little help from Broncos legend Rod Smith, says the Broncos can win the Super Bowl by having a little bit more love in the locker room. Ubuntu, if you will, but not calling it that. The Broncos have all the talent in the world, but they need to be close in order to win the Super Bowl. Everyone probably doesn't remember how the 2014 Patriots were seen as an extremely close team and that's how they won the Super Bowl. You don't remember, because I'm not sure this is a real thing that happened. The Seahawks weren't a divided team, but there were differing opinions on the release of Percy Harvin among the players on the Seahawks roster, yet they found a way to be close enough to almost win the Super Bowl. Perhaps it wasn't the fact the Seahawks threw the ball near the goal line that lost them the Super Bowl, but was instead that the team spent too much time playing on their phones during the bus ride to the stadium. That lack of closeness could have lost them the Super Bowl.
It's a cool $70
million contract. But what Demaryius Thomas wants, money cannot buy. He
envies the Super Bowl rings of Broncos legend Rod Smith.
No, literally...money CAN buy a Super Bowl ring.
"He wants a Super Bowl ring. ... And I kind of rub it on his chest," Smith said Tuesday.
You rub it on his chest? Why the fuck would your rub it in his chest? Don't normal braggarts rub things in the face of others?
If the Broncos want
to get back to the Super Bowl and win it this time, Smith offered novel
advice for an NFL franchise he loves like family.
Play in 3-4 playoff games, all while scoring more points than the opposing team in every playoff game? It's a winning strategy. Bank on it.
In the estimation of
Smith, the Broncos have all the talent needed to win a championship. But
the difference between hoisting the Lombardi Trophy and going home
disappointed from the playoffs can often be attributed to the lack of
brotherhood in the huddle.
No Ubuntu, no Super Bowl win for you. This is some high-level analysis here. Here I thought the Broncos could win the Super Bowl by having Peyton Manning not wear his arm out before the season is over or have Rahim Moore jump just a little bit later so he can bat a deep pass from Joe Flacco down.
Denver players need
to stop living inside the cellphone and spend more time finding out what
really makes the heart of a teammate tick.
But Mark, you HAVE to have a cellphone in order to answer this question.
How else does Kiszla expect these Broncos players to get to WebMD in order to find out what makes the heart of a teammate tick if they don't have their cell phones? Bring a laptop into the locker room?
"Put the (expletive)
phones down and have real conversations with people," declared the
45-year-old Smith, so fired up he preached for more than an hour with
passion hotter than the sun dancing in the gray flecks of his beard.
I bet Demaryius Thomas rubs it in Rod Smith's chest that Demaryius doesn't have gray flecks in his beard yet.
"Today, with social media, nobody knows who the hell they're working with.
I know who I am working with better than I ever could have because of social media. I'm friends with some co-workers on Facebook so I get to see pictures of their friends, family, loved ones, quotes they like, political views, the food they ate, and their opinion on a variety of topics. I would actually like to know the people I work with LESS than I currently do. I'm not sure Rod Smith has a firm grasp on how social media works.
You all work
together, but you have no idea what makes him tick. This is the locker
room right now. This is why the locker room is so divided. Everybody
worried about 'likes' versus worried about what (a teammate) is going
through at home.
Yes, because Von Miller is going to open up to Demaryius Thomas about his struggles at home. Perhaps they can talk about male impotence and figure out how to fight this battle together, as opposed to facing this issue alone.
But seriously, again, people put on Facebook the things they are going through all the time. I don't know if professional athletes do this, but I doubt they would open up in the middle of the locker room either.
I need to know that, because I've got to go to battle with this dude. But they're all disconnected."
They are connected through social media.
From linebacker Von
Miller to receiver Emmanuel Sanders, the Broncos sent 10 players to the
Pro Bowl after the 2014 season. They were also eliminated after one sad
game in the playoffs. From the beginning, however, the Broncos were
better at fantasy football than on the field, when the going got tough.
And of course, the reason behind the Broncos not being good when the going got tough is that they weren't close enough to each other. Were previous Super Bowl champions really close teams or something? Is there some sort of proven correlation that teams that like each other win more Super Bowls that I don't know about? Like the Patriots were super-close all year and that's how Malcolm Butler managed to intercept a pass on the goal line?
"The answer is not putting more pieces in. It's taking the pieces you have and putting them closer together."
Yes, but what if the pieces you have don't fit closer together? What if the pieces fit how they fit and success isn't determined by how these pieces fit anyway?
It's a simply
powerful idea: What the Broncos need is not more talent in the locker
room. It's more genuine love for one another.
It's a powerful idea and it's a very anecdotal idea that lacks the anecdotal evidence for me to even believe it. In fact, the very idea a team won a title because they were close is too anecdotal for me to ever believe. It seems too much like "Here is a result and let's fit in a narrative that explains this result."
while lamenting these
kids in the league today don't know the meaning of true commitment,
there's an expectation the final exclamation in his rant will be: Get
off my lawn!
Despite the growling,
what makes Smith a cuddly bear is knowing he was the same curmudgeon
while earning his first trip to the Pro Bowl at age 29 that he is now in
middle age.
This isn't a "Get off my lawn!" rant because Rod Smith has always wanted people to get off his lawn.
To this day, there's
not a soul in Broncos Country who wants to see Denver back on top more
than Smith. To help the cause, Smith has served as a mentor to Thomas,
first in the refinement of receiving skills and later in the development
of the quiet, unassuming D.T. as a leader.
Maybe Rod Smith and Mark Kiszla can help create a fictional "Broncos Way" and then state that is why the team will win the Super Bowl. Then any variation away from this "Broncos Way" will result in a few columns churned out about how the Broncos have lost the "Broncos Way" because failure occurred.
"As long as Peyton Manning's here, it's always going to be Peyton Manning's team," Smith said.
"Thanks," says Gary Kubiak.
But here's my theory: Since the Broncos signed Peyton Manning in
2012, the team has leaned so heavily on his Hall of Fame ability that
when former coach John Fox told me for the umpteenth time that Manning
raises all boats, I began to wonder who was in charge of this clambake.
So Mark Kiszla's theory is that the Broncos leaned on Manning so much that Kiszla wondered who was really in charge. His theory is that he has no theory but a question that he's wondering about. My theory about this column is whether it is really such a slow news day that writing about how the Broncos need to love each other more seemed like a good idea.
they raised him to
such mythical status as a leader that Manning has lost touch with the
common grunt in the Broncos locker room.
PEYTON MANNING IS THE HILLARY CLINTON OF THE NFL!
I've listened as too many teammates speak about Manning with hushed reverence, as if Manning were Santa Claus,
Yes, the same hushed reverence that Santa Claus receives in most NFL locker rooms.
What an odd statement. Santa Claus?
"I've listened as too many teammates speak about Demaryius Thomas with pure amusement and joy, as if Thomas were Dora the Explorer..."
omnipresent and the final arbiter of who's naughty or nice.
This is stupid to call Santa Claus the final arbiter of who's naughty or nice. Everyone knows that person is Roger Goodell.
When all the best
plans go to pieces as the snap sails over the QB's head at the Super
Bowl, however, there needs to be a strong voice that can rally
downtrodden teammates,
Hey, how about the quarterback? I mean, the offense goes back to the bench and Manning can be a strong voice to rally his teammates.
while Manning sits on the bench and studies the All-22 photographs to analyze how it went wrong.
Ah, I get it. In order to become a close team, the Broncos offense should exclude Peyton Manning from any leadership opportunities and sneak off to meet while he's reviewing film from the previous drive. This, undoubtedly, will bring the team closer together. It moves the pieces closer together, almost like Manning and the rest of the Broncos offensive players are the Santa and Mrs. Claus of the NFL.
When Thomas insists
his lucrative contract only makes him hungrier, it's music to the ears
of Smith. His hunger is for championships. To get that ring, Thomas
must instill the hunger in teammates.
This hunger must be instilled. And obviously "this hunger" is directly related to "being super-close with your teammates." It's pretty much the same thing, you know, since this entire column is about how the Broncos should be closer to each other and now Mark Kiszla is randomly discussing how the Broncos need to be hungrier.
"It pays off,
honestly, when you're down in the fourth quarter and you've got a minute
and a half left to win the game," Smith said.
Like when things got tough in the Super Bowl and the Broncos needed a first down, so John Elway ran for the first down to keep the drive alive? So when the leadership came from someone who happened to be the quarterback?
That's more than leadership. That's a band of football brothers, sharing the love.
Put down the phone, get to know your teammate, then win the Super Bowl. What happens if all 32 NFL teams do this? Will they all win the Super Bowl?
The best part of this column is one of the comments from a "macomment" who says in a very articulate way:
I think Rod has a good point. Drop that twitter, facebook, instagram,
snapchat, tumblr crap for the season and focus on football. PLEASE! I
dumped facebook a couple years ago and never looked back.
And "maccomment" won the Super Bowl THE VERY NEXT SEASON. Coincidence? Probably not. He dumped Facebook and his life became much more fulfilling and obviously this anonymous Internet commenter's professional life is analogous to the professional life of an NFL player.
It's great not
seeing ugly baby photos and closeups of your neighbor's dinner while
being bombarded with focused advertisements.
You mean seeing things that help you to know more about your neighbor and friends? Those things that Mike Kiszla says the Broncos need to do more of by getting away from social media?
That being said, Fox
showered the Broncos with love.
Yes, ugly babies aside, AND WITH THAT BEING SAID...
These guys don't need that kind of love
...
Not the John Fox kind of love. More of a tough love. Perhaps love bordering on the edge of child abuse. Instead of taking pictures of an ugly baby, go out and beat the shit out of an ugly baby until it chokes on it's pathetic baby tears and can't breathe through it's stupid baby mouth. THAT is the kind of love the Broncos need.
they need the type of love that Adrian Peterson delivers to his 4 yr
old son so that none of us ever has to endure a half-baked effort like
that playoff game against the Colts.
I agree. In order for the Broncos to play better as a team, they should all be beaten with a switch. I mean, obviously this is something that should occur. Nothing will bring the Broncos together closer than to know they each have the same scars from where Gary Kubiak bent them over his knee and beat them until they bled with a switch.
Showing posts with label bad advice. Show all posts
Showing posts with label bad advice. Show all posts
Saturday, September 12, 2015
Thursday, January 8, 2015
5 comments Gregg Easterbrook Won't Reveal His TMQ Trade Secrets (It's Selectively Ignoring Information, That's One of the Secrets)
I'm still a week behind Gregg's TMQ, but I'm working on catching up. Gregg had the idea for the NFL to adopt two-hand touch to call the quarterback down instead of defenders tackling the quarterback. In the realm of really bad ideas, I think this has to be one of Gregg's worst. Two-hand touch can still injure a player, especially with a linebacker or defensive lineman going full speed. That's assuming the defensive player is going full speed of course. Who wants to watch football played at half speed? This week in TMQ Gregg talks about the coaching carousel ("but carousels are supposed to be fun!" insists Peter King) and refuses to reveal his trade secrets behind TMQ. I know one of the secrets. Misleading his readers and making things up when necessary.
Out the door they go! Rex Ryan, Jim Harbaugh, Mike Smith, Marc Trestman -- every NFL season ends with a coaching purge.
Teams expect results. Those coaches who don't produce results get fired.
"Fire the coach" is a perennial NFL refrain. When the fans are in an uproar, the owner can't fire the players: rebuilding a roster takes at least two years, even when all goes well.
But it doesn't take two years to go from missing the playoffs to making the playoffs. NFL teams can rebuild their roster and also compete. Don't act like this isn't possible.
The one quick, decisive action an owner can take to assign blame, and generate hope for next season, is to fire the coach. So out the door they go!
One needn't have sympathy for cashiered pro coaches. They are paid very well for doing something that huge numbers of men do for modest reward (high school coaches) or for no pay at all (middle-school and youth coaches). And the NFL is strictly an entertainment organization. Losing seasons are not entertaining, so throw the bum out!
Gregg thinks owners fire coaches to generate hope and assign blame, but then seems okay with the decision to fire these coaches. So are the owners assigning blame or simply firing a coach for not making the team successful and entertaining? It can be both, but barely. Gregg seems to think that owners are assigning blame so the blame doesn't go to them, but is it really falsely assigning blame if the coach didn't do what he was hired to do?
Perhaps the sole NFL coach who can make a case for keeping his job even though his team was bad is Sean Payton, who (rightly or wrongly) is associated with the recovery of New Orleans from Hurricane Katrina, giving Payton a civic value no other NFL coach possesses.
So Saints fans, it's okay if your team continues to lose because Sean Payton is associated with the recovery of New Orleans from Hurricane Katrina. So if Sean Payton eventually leads your Saints team into the gutter, feel good knowing that he should stick around because he helped the city recover from a natural disaster.
Since 1978 the Browns, Colts and Raiders have combined for 33 instances of head-coach turnover, and also mainly struggled in that period. The team with the least coaching turnover since 1978 is the Steelers, two new head coaches. And hey, look, three Super Bowl rings during the period.
There is a causation issue here. Ever so many layers to this statement. Have the Browns, Colts, Raiders lacked stability and struggled since 1978 because they keep changing coaches or because they keep hiring the wrong coaches? Are the Steelers a stable organization and win Super Bowls because they have stability from choosing good head coaches or is the stability because they rarely change head coaches? Is Gregg suggesting the Raiders, Browns and Raiders would each have three Super Bowl victories since 1978 if they had rarely changed head coaches?
This is another instance where Gregg is taking pains to mislead his readers a little bit. The Raiders have struggled during that time, as have the Browns, but the Raiders had a pretty good coach in Jon Gruden before he was traded to the Buccaneers. If Gruden wasn't traded to the Buccaneers then Bill Callahan, Norv Turner, Art Shell, and Lane Kiffin may not have ever coached the Raiders. Who knows how long Gruden would have been there in Oakland? He was fired by the Buccaneers and if he had been fired by the Raiders at the same point then they would have had four fewer head coaches (maybe five, since Gruden's firing intersected with Tom Cable's time coaching the Raiders).
And no, the Colts haven't struggled since 1978. They have had 16 losing seasons, 2 .500 seasons, and 19 winning seasons since 1978. This includes 17 playoff appearances, 4 conference championship appearances, and 2 Super Bowl appearances with 1 Super Bowl victory. This is a great example of Gregg trying to mislead his readers. He claims the Colts have mainly struggled since 1978 when they have had more winning seasons than losing seasons or .500 seasons combined and have appeared in two Super Bowls. Gregg will talk in this TMQ about trade secrets of TMQ, but Gregg's intentions of misleading his readers who won't do the research behind his claims are not a secret.
Firing the head coach as winter begins gives customers a reason to believe the next season won't be as bad, and to pull out their credit cards. Some memorable NFL firings:
But it's okay to fire these coaches because they aren't providing good entertainment, right? So firing the head coach is the right thing to do, unless Gregg wants to make it look like the owner is shifting blame.
Lovie Smith was fired by the Bears at the end of 2012, when Chicago had just gone 10-6; as he was shown the door, Smith had an 84-66 record in Chicago. But the NFL's goofy playoff format gave two 10-6 teams home postseason games while telling the Bears to shut it down. Smith was scapegoated for the goofy format that was beyond his control, and given cab fare. The Bears are 13-19 since and just fired Trestman, Smith's replacement, along with Phil Emery, who fired Smith.
Here goes Gregg leaving out information again. Lovie Smith was hired by the Buccaneers this past offseason and he led them to a 2-14 season and the #1 overall pick in the draft. Of course Gregg leaves that out when talking about how bad the Bears have been without Smith. Smith isn't a terrible head coach, but Gregg conveniently leaves out Lovie Smith's lack of success during his first season in Tampa Bay when pointing out the Bears' record under Trestman.
Jimmy Johnson was fired by Jerry Jones after winning two Super Bowls: Jones' nose was out of joint because he wanted all credit for himself. The Boys, 7-1 in the postseason under Johnson, are 6-8 in the postseason since Johnson was cashiered.
Of course the Cowboys also won a Super Bowl two years after firing Jimmy Johnson. What do you know, Gregg leaves that part out.
John Fox was let go by Carolina in 2010 despite a Super Bowl appearance and a 5-3 postseason record; the Panthers have not won a playoff game since.
The Panthers won a playoff game five days after Gregg wrote this. So what does that mean? It was fine to not extend Fox's contract? And no, John Fox was not "let go" by the Panthers. He wasn't fired, yet Gregg constantly has insisted Fox was fired. He was not. His contract wasn't renewed because the direction he wanted to go with the Panthers wasn't the direction the owner wanted to go. Jerry Richardson wanted to build a team that made back-to-back playoff appearances, which isn't something John Fox was able to do. Guess what? Due to being in a shitty division the Panthers did make back-to-back playoff appearances! John Fox is happy and the Panthers are (temporarily) happy.
Tom Coughlin started the Jaguars as an expansion franchise, took them to four playoff appearances in the team's first five seasons, then was fired after a couple of off years. Management's all-caps view seemed to be: WHAT DO YOU MEAN WE'RE NOT IN THE PLAYOFFS EVERY YEAR! Coughlin went on to coach the Giants to two Super Bowl trophies; Jax has not had a winning-record coach since.
By the way, as my wife points out to me "a couple" is two. The Jaguars had three off years in a row. They went 7-9, 6-10, and 6-10 from 2000-2002. That's not a couple off years in a row, that's three off years in a row.
The Southeastern Conference is the college organization most similar to the NFL, and since 1978 -- we're using that year because it was when the FBS formed -- among the 12 current SEC member schools, the head coach has changed 84 times. That's a 1-in-5.1 chance of the head coach being shown the door, nearly as bad as the NFL. The Big 12 in that period has shown a 1-in-8.5 chance of the head coach being tossed overboard.
I wonder if the SEC has the highest chance of a head coach being fired, over not only that time span, but in recorded history. INCLUDING THE TRIASSIC PERIOD.
Don't feel sorry for the newbies. NFL and big-college coaches are very well paid for the ritual humiliations they undergo. Wouldn't you want to be the next Jets head coach even if you knew it would all coming crashing down in angry recriminations a couple of years later?
I don't think anyone does feel sorry for these coaches, Gregg. Where do you get the idea these head coaches are gaining sympathy for being fired?
In other pro football news, the NFL's goofy postseason setup has Carolina, a losing team, hosting a playoff contest while five winning teams, including 10-6 Philadelphia, don't reach the playoffs. Many respond by saying, "Well, that's the format." But why is it the format?
I don't love it either, but it is the format because the NFL says that's the format.
With eight four-team divisions each assured a home playoff game, every NFL owner goes into the season knowing his or her team has a 25 percent chance of hosting a postseason party, no matter how poorly the team may perform. Pure socialism!
The NFL isn't the only sport that does this. So socialism is prevalent throughout sports.
As for who will make the Super Bowl, TMQ's regular-season finale Authentic Games Index comes to a clear prediction. See below.
But I thought that metric was just for kicks and is purely unscientific? That's what Gregg has told us when it looked like the Authentic Games metric would get the Super Bowl pick incorrect. As I predicted, if the metric gets the correct Super Bowl pairing then Gregg will be glad to mention that the metric worked again this year (after different tries each week of course to get the pairing correct) and tout how it may be unscientific but it works...until next year when it doesn't work and he's all like, "Nah, it's just for shits and giggles. Why so serious?"
Cleveland leading 10-6 at Baltimore midway through the fourth quarter, the Ravens, who dropped their final two games in 2013 to miss the postseason, were in danger of doing the same in 2014. On first-and-10, Joe Flacco saw a "shallow" Cover 2, safeties close to the line of scrimmage because Cleveland expected run. Flacco audibled to a go route to Torrey Smith, who blew past a shallow safety for a 53-yard completion. Touchdown one snap later and the defending champions from 2012 were on their way to the postseason of 2014.
I think Gregg means highly-drafted, highly-paid glory boy Joe Flacco threw the ball to highly-drafted glory boy Torrey Smith. Of course highly-drafted Joe Haden had tight coverage on Smith, but Haden is a cornerback and not a safety as Gregg indicates. Small details like this that show Gregg doesn't pay attention to what he's writing shouldn't call into question any other facts in TMQ though, should it? The important part is the play Gregg is discussing, not if any of the facts are correct as he describes them.
Cheer-babe professionalism was a huge factor the Nevermores' comeback. Professionalism in this context means skin or at least skin-tight; scantily attired cheerleaders propitiate the football gods. Kickoff temperature 54 degrees, the Baltimore cheerleaders came out in two-piece warm-weather numbers, which caused the football gods to smile upon their team.
You are creepy. Gregg will continue talking about how the NFL exploits their cheerleaders in TMQ, all while ogling them and encouraging these exploited cheerleaders to wear less clothing because he believes it helps their team win more games.
As for the Browns, they hold two first-round picks in the upcoming draft, plus other extra selections. Fans may wish Cleveland had spent some of this bounty to improve the team right now and end its 12-season playoff drought.
You mean like trade up into the first round of the draft to grab a player they think can help their team, as they have two of out of the last three NFL Drafts? Or should the Browns spend a draft pick on a quarterback, as they have done in two of the last three NFL Drafts? The Browns aren't a bad team and they have used their draft picks to become a better team.
Seattle and St. Louis tied to start the fourth quarter, on second-and-long Les Mouflons tried to set up a screen. The tailback was covered, so Shaun Hill threw at the back's feet seeking a deliberate incompletion: defensive tackle Jordan Hill dove and intercepted the ball. A few plays later a touchdown put the defending champions ahead to stay.
Doesn't Gregg mean undrafted, unwanted Shaun Hill threw an interception and third round pick from a football factory school Jordan Hill intercepted the ball?
A moment after that, Hill threw a pick-six to linebacker Bruce Irvin.
An undrafted free agent threw an interception to first round pick glory boy Bruce Irvin. Isn't it weird how draft position doesn't become important in these two situations? If Sam Bradford had thrown these interceptions then I'm betting draft position would suddenly become important.
Authentic Games Standings: Around Thanksgiving, the Cardinals were first in Authentic Games and had the inside track for first seed, then the first-ever Super Bowl on a team's home field.
This is what happens when you use a metric that predicts what will happen two months from now, but the metric uses a constantly changing and arbitrary set of rules to make this prediction.
The elimination of Houston, Kansas City and San Diego causes a major shakeup in the Authentic standings -- though eliminated 10-6 Philadelphia remains Authentic while 7-8-1 Carolina is barred entry despite hosting a playoff contest. The Eagles performed in an Authentic manner, the Panthers did not, though benefiting from NFL socialism.
How can a metric where Gregg pulls teams in and out of the metric, which affects the underlying data and results, not be an authentic metric? This is unthinkable.
What's interesting is that Gregg calls his metric the "Authentic Games metric" and there is very little authentic about the metric.
The biggest effect on the standings is that Denver plummets from 6-3 last week to 2-3, losing four wins over the now-discarded Bolts and Chiefs. Seattle rises to 5-1 as its defeats by those clubs no longer matter.
I don't even know what to say at this point. I think the pointlessness speaks for itself.
The Authentic Games index clearly taps Pittsburgh and Seattle as the Super Bowl pairing. TMQ's gut feeling continues to be New England versus Seattle.
That's what TMQ's "gut" says. This is not to be confused with Gregg's real prediction before the season of Denver-New Orleans or his alternative pick of Seattle-Indianapolis. At some point, out of these four picks, Gregg will get one correct and he will be very proud of himself.
My Non-Authentic Games standings have revealed the following Super Bowl matchups so far:
Packers and Broncos
Saints and Dolphins
Packers and Patriots
Eagles and Bills
Rams and Texans
Carolina-Pittsburgh
Dallas-Houston
After Week 17, the final Non-Authentic Games standings the Super Bowl pick will be Carolina-Denver. I can't wait for one of these picks to be right and it will just prove what a great metric the Non-Authentic Games standings can be.
Reaching third-and-goal at the 1, the Bills put six offensive linemen on field, then split 6-6, 330-pound tackle Chris Hairston, who reported eligible, out wide covered by a skinny cornerback. As New England pointed at the wide giant, Buffalo ran up the middle for a touchdown.
Did the Bills "do a little dance" before scoring this touchdown? If not, how did they manage to gain short yardage without "doing a little dance"? That's how Gregg has told his readers that a team can convert on short yardage.
Over the years TMQ has pounded the table regarding standard phrases of political bloviation such as addressing audiences of people whose names you don't even know as "my friends," and constant use of "frankly" -- are you lying at other times? -- plus its superfluous intensifier "quite frankly." At this point, a United States senator ordering lunch says, "My friends, acting without fear or favor, I'll have the turkey sandwich." White House spokespersons say, "Quite frankly, we hope for peace on Earth."
Constant invocation of "the American people" seems to raise the stakes. It suggests either that, like ObamaCare advisers, people at the top think people at the bottom are too stupid to realize they're being played; or that people at the top have such runaway egos they actually believe they personally speak for the entire American people.
Sportswriters do this too by using the word "we" as much as politicians seem to use "the American people." It seems huge egos and believing they speak for a large population of people are (is?) something sportswriters and politicians have in common.
Reader MacGregor Obergfell of Columbus, Ohio, reports that he was in a JoAnn Fabrics on the day after Christmas and saw "an Easter display front and center."
I'm calling bullshit. That's not a real name. MacGregor Obergfell. Not real.
The New Era Pinstripe Bowl -- there was no old-era Pinstripe Bowl, New Era is a cap company -- was as good as football gets.
People know New Era is a cap company. People throughout record history know this. INCLUDING THE TRIASSIC PERIOD.
The Golden Age of Radio Isn't Over: Reader Will Martin asks, "Many of your insights seem to come from watching the actual games. Where do you get your film and how many hours do you watch?"
Will, the fact you call what Gregg writes as being "insights" shows me that you are too far gone to be helped. Godspeed.
(pushes Will out to sea on an iceberg)
One of the founding insights of Tuesday Morning Quarterback was that football coverage spends too much time on stars, owners and coaches, not enough on what actually happens during games. (This may be true of coverage of other sports as well, football is the only sport I follow closely enough to feel sure.) There are 100 words written or spoken about what might happen in any given football game for each one word regarding what did happen.
I'm sure Gregg's quoted amount of 100 words written or spoken about what might happen in a football game for each word regarding what did happen in a football game is complete fact. This isn't a guess by Gregg at all. Anyone who watches ESPN knows they never discuss what just happened during a game. Ever.
Eventually I became convinced -- and don't take this too hard, writers and broadcasters whose whole lives are tied up in commenting on football -- that some football writers and on-air football personnel don't spend much time watching games.
I can barely keep this spoiler in anymore. Gregg reveals in a second he doesn't watch every game either. So the column he writes as the antidote for columns written by writers that don't watch every football game is now a product of Gregg not watching every football game too.
Both may be interesting, but football outcomes are as much determined by tactics on plays that don't make highlight reels as by the occasional spectacular run or catch. And the structure of big-media sports coverage is that some writers and on-air personnel choose (or are assigned) one particular game to pay attention to per week, ignoring the rest except for highlights.
Which, by the way, covering the highlights is all that Gregg does in TMQ every week. He discusses a specific play for certain games, but that's only covering the highlights of a certain game, even if he attempts (and fails at times) to determine tactics on a play.
Thus at the outset, TMQ resolved, first, to write about what actually happens on the field and, second, to watch every game.
Gregg doesn't seem to understand the first part entirely and he doesn't watch every game. In the end, TMQ is a column about highlights from some games where Gregg attempts to criticize coaches and players for certain plays that fit into a specific criteria Gregg writes about almost every week (too much blitzing, not enough "doing a little dance" in short yardage situations, cowardly coaching tactics, etc). So TMQ is a column where Gregg doesn't spend much time watching every game and talks about highlights that fit criteria required to be in TMQ. Basically, it's not that far off from what's it is supposed to be the antidote to.
I've always kept the first resolve. Until 2011, I kept the second -- I watched at least most of every NFL game, and each column had at least one item about the tactics employed in every game that week. But keeping the second resolve was a ton of work, considering sportswriting is my avocation, not my profession. Beginning with the 2012 season, I stopped promising an item on every game -- though I've continued to produce items on around three-quarters of NFL contests, plus many college games.
Gregg can write what he wants to write. It's his column. I do find it interesting he talks about how he writes about "many college games" as if that makes up for not producing items on every NFL game. TMQ is supposed to be a column about the NFL. Why not spend the time spent watching the college games to watch NFL games? It's like a restaurant who keeps prices the same but provides smaller portions. Then that restaurant claims they don't give you as much food, but they have free refills on drinks now.
So Will Martin asks -- how do I do it?
Will, the answer is: Trade secret. There are two trade secrets supporting Tuesday Morning Quarterback: How to contact the football gods, and how to understand what happens on the field in most games and still have time to live a regular life. I've figured out both secrets. If I gave either away, I'd only be creating competition for myself.
Since there are no football gods, and it's bullshit to claim otherwise, I'll just assume Gregg uses some form of bullshit to claim to know what happens on the field in most games. In reality, I'm betting there is someone paid to find Gregg certain plays that can appear in TMQ and then they are forwarded on to Gregg to appear in TMQ. My best guess is one of the trade secrets is that Gregg doesn't understand what happens on the football field, but what he does put in TMQ is done with assistance from another person. It would explain why some facts Gregg presents about certain games and plays aren't entirely accurate, as well as where some of the misinformation comes from, if Gregg has someone describing to him a play that he then describes to his audience.
But I will give a tip about part of how I do it because it's a tip many football enthusiasts could benefit from: every Sunday I devote at least two hours to listening to games on the radio.
Wait, so Gregg originally wrote TMQ because too many on-air personnel don't spend time watching games, but he gets some of his information from on-air personnel who don't spend enough time watching games? You know, that does make some sense that Gregg would do that.
This leads to a key bit of TMQ advice: try watching a football game with the sound turned off. Undistracted by patter, sound effects and anecdotes about Jay-Z or Katherine Heigl, you'll find your senses instantly take in more of what's actually happening on the field.
I often do. Here is a key bit of advice from BotB: Understand that NFL teams don't only play man coverage and sometimes a cornerback is supposed to let a receiver go past him. Sometimes a cornerback isn't making the mistake of looking in the backfield but focusing on the action in front of him because that's his responsibility.
Would City of Tampa have been better off with the second choice? There may be pressure on the franchise to select Florida sports celeb Jameis Winston. He's not a Lovie Smith kind of guy, and has tremendous meltdown potential. Marcus Mariota will be tempting, but his style of play is so similar to that of Colin Kaepernick that the worry would be a Kaepernick-style flameout.
I don't know even what I want to say about this. Marcus Mariota is a much better passer in college than Colin Kaepernick was. And I'm not quite ready to say that Colin Kaepernick has flamed out. Of course, Gregg will forget he wrote this if Kaepernick starts off the 2015 season playing well.
At the second overall selection, there will be far less pressure on whoever is taken.
And the second overall selection is also the second selection, meaning the Buccaneers couldn't have the option of choosing whichever football player they wanted to choose. Plus, there is still a lot of pressure on the second overall pick. This is an especially rich comment coming from Gregg Easterbrook, a guy who is sure to mention any play where a highly-drafted player screws up. There is always pressure on a first round draft pick, and a lot of pressure on a player drafted #2 overall. I think Gregg couldn't be more wrong in making this statement.
Reader Konrad Miller of Austin, Texas, writes, "NFL officials mainly do a good job, but there are so many high-profile botched calls that perhaps crowd-sourcing is the solution.
Wow. I see terrible ideas aren't just exclusively Gregg's dominion. His readers can chip in with terrible ideas too.
"When a call is challenged, put the decision in the hands of viewers at home. They'd see two views of the replay -- that's all a referee should ever see since if you need to watch more than two times, the outcome is not indisputable -- then be given numbers to text for their votes. Sitting in the comfort and relative peace of our living room, with large HD televisions, fans are probably getting a superior view of the game anyway. We don't have the added pressures of the crowd or head coaches demanding attention.
Unfortunately people who watch football are also drinking, which affects their judgment.
"As for team bias, if generally equal numbers of opposing fans are watching each game, their bias would cancel out in the voting.
That's a massive "if." Generally equal numbers of opposing fans are not watching each game. Not to mention, fans who may hate one of the teams will also be voting. So this horrible, terrible idea assumes that each NFL team has an equal number of fans watching the game (which is impossible to actually believe is ever true) and those who aren't fans of either team will either (a) not vote, (b) be impartial when voting, or (c) be equal in number as to how many unreasonably dislike one team over the other.
Basically, the reason this idea may be the worst idea ever,* is because if the Jaguars and Cowboys are playing, and there is a replay challenge, then people who hate the Cowboys will vote in whatever direction hurts the Cowboys as much as possible. While this is happening the fact there are many more Cowboys fans than Jaguars fans would mean Cowboys fans would vote in the direction that benefits their team the most. It would be chaos and would not ever equal out. Congratulations Konrad Miller from Austin, Texas, you have the worst idea ever.*
*For this week only.
Technology could be employed to prevent fans at the game from voting, since they'd always side with the home team. Having thousands if not millions of people vote on a challenge would make the NFL more engaging to viewers -- and by calling on the wisdom of crowds, lead to better rulings. Plus it couldn't take any longer than the current system."
But this system would provide more inaccurate results based upon which teams have the most fans that love or hate that team, which obviously counts for nothing and ruins the entire point of a replay system designed to get to the truth behind what happened on a play. The idea of putting replays in the hands of viewers at home would take any bias the officials have and insert the bias of millions of people into the equation. There will never be equal numbers of opposing fans watching each game and it introduces so many biases into the equation this idea should never be spoken of again.
Of an item on long tracking codes -- the 22-digit USPS tracking code might be sufficient to assign to a unique number to every star in the universe -- many readers noted the codes don't merely identify the package. Scott Yonts of Auburn, Maine, wrote, "Long tracking numbers are kind of misleading because they contain several pieces of data. For instance, there is a unique package identifier in the 18-character tracking codes used by UPS, but that's only seven of the characters. The additional characters identify the shipper and the shipping service, among other things."
So will Gregg write, "That is information that I did not know" or "I can see why UPS uses this 22-digit tracking code now" in response to his complaint being countered with a real reason why his complaint is invalid? Of course not! He moves on without writing another word about this.
Many readers including Dorothy Hutchinson of Mahwah, New Jersey, noted this concern just landed on the front page of the New York Times. The paper reports that over the last year Christie -- Governor Abutment to this column -- "spent 152 days, or 42 percent of his time, outside New Jersey." While wagging his finger at others regarding public spending, Christie methodically wastes taxpayers' money to promote himself.
You will have to speak up. Chris Christie can't hear you all the way in Dallas while sitting in Jerry Jones' box.
Will the new College Football Playoff cause declining interest in bowls?
Nope, the ratings were still great.
Back in the day, bowls were financed by ticket sales. In the cable-TV era, broadcast rights mean more than the gate, so a bowl can play to a weak house yet be a financial success. Still, early attendance figures aren't impressive. The Zaxby's Heart of Dallas Bowl -- successor to the TicketCity Bowl, surely you knew that -- drew just 31,297 spectators in the 92,100-seat Cotton Bowl. The San Diego County Credit Union Poinsettia Bowl -- which really needs a longer name -- played to just 33,077 spectators though it was Navy versus San Diego State, both colleges having local interest. Just 34,014 spectators were present for the R+L Carriers New Orleans Bowl, played in a 73,208-seat facility, though it featured Louisiana-Lafayette, a local-interest school.
So because the broadcast rights mean so much, then there won't be declining interest in bowls due to the College Football Playoff. This is true even if attendance for bowls isn't great. It's not like the R+L Carriers New Orleans Bowl is affected one way or another by the College Football Playoff. Attendance will be what it will be based on the matchup, regardless if there is a football playoff to choose a champion or manatees choose the champion.
The Football Gods Chortled, Indeed: Indianapolis at Tennessee scoreless, the Colts had first-and-goal on the Flaming Thumbtacks' 7. Coby Fleener lined up as an inline tight end on the right. As Andrew Luck play-faked, Fleener pretended to block, then paused for a beat, then ran into the left flat uncovered for an easy touchdown. Fleener never blocks -- how could Tennessee fall for a fake block by a guy who never blocks?
Yes, Fleener NEVER blocks. Ever. So a defensive player should just cover Fleener on every play and never worry about whether he is going to block them or not.
There is a difference between a player who never blocks and a player who isn't very good at blocking. Gregg doesn't seem to understand that difference. If a player isn't very good at blocking, then it doesn't mean the defense should just assume he's never blocking.
Next Week: If Carolina reaches the Super Bowl with a record of 10-8-1, will the world end?
I certainly hope that we get to find out.
Out the door they go! Rex Ryan, Jim Harbaugh, Mike Smith, Marc Trestman -- every NFL season ends with a coaching purge.
Teams expect results. Those coaches who don't produce results get fired.
"Fire the coach" is a perennial NFL refrain. When the fans are in an uproar, the owner can't fire the players: rebuilding a roster takes at least two years, even when all goes well.
But it doesn't take two years to go from missing the playoffs to making the playoffs. NFL teams can rebuild their roster and also compete. Don't act like this isn't possible.
The one quick, decisive action an owner can take to assign blame, and generate hope for next season, is to fire the coach. So out the door they go!
One needn't have sympathy for cashiered pro coaches. They are paid very well for doing something that huge numbers of men do for modest reward (high school coaches) or for no pay at all (middle-school and youth coaches). And the NFL is strictly an entertainment organization. Losing seasons are not entertaining, so throw the bum out!
Gregg thinks owners fire coaches to generate hope and assign blame, but then seems okay with the decision to fire these coaches. So are the owners assigning blame or simply firing a coach for not making the team successful and entertaining? It can be both, but barely. Gregg seems to think that owners are assigning blame so the blame doesn't go to them, but is it really falsely assigning blame if the coach didn't do what he was hired to do?
Perhaps the sole NFL coach who can make a case for keeping his job even though his team was bad is Sean Payton, who (rightly or wrongly) is associated with the recovery of New Orleans from Hurricane Katrina, giving Payton a civic value no other NFL coach possesses.
So Saints fans, it's okay if your team continues to lose because Sean Payton is associated with the recovery of New Orleans from Hurricane Katrina. So if Sean Payton eventually leads your Saints team into the gutter, feel good knowing that he should stick around because he helped the city recover from a natural disaster.
Since 1978 the Browns, Colts and Raiders have combined for 33 instances of head-coach turnover, and also mainly struggled in that period. The team with the least coaching turnover since 1978 is the Steelers, two new head coaches. And hey, look, three Super Bowl rings during the period.
There is a causation issue here. Ever so many layers to this statement. Have the Browns, Colts, Raiders lacked stability and struggled since 1978 because they keep changing coaches or because they keep hiring the wrong coaches? Are the Steelers a stable organization and win Super Bowls because they have stability from choosing good head coaches or is the stability because they rarely change head coaches? Is Gregg suggesting the Raiders, Browns and Raiders would each have three Super Bowl victories since 1978 if they had rarely changed head coaches?
This is another instance where Gregg is taking pains to mislead his readers a little bit. The Raiders have struggled during that time, as have the Browns, but the Raiders had a pretty good coach in Jon Gruden before he was traded to the Buccaneers. If Gruden wasn't traded to the Buccaneers then Bill Callahan, Norv Turner, Art Shell, and Lane Kiffin may not have ever coached the Raiders. Who knows how long Gruden would have been there in Oakland? He was fired by the Buccaneers and if he had been fired by the Raiders at the same point then they would have had four fewer head coaches (maybe five, since Gruden's firing intersected with Tom Cable's time coaching the Raiders).
And no, the Colts haven't struggled since 1978. They have had 16 losing seasons, 2 .500 seasons, and 19 winning seasons since 1978. This includes 17 playoff appearances, 4 conference championship appearances, and 2 Super Bowl appearances with 1 Super Bowl victory. This is a great example of Gregg trying to mislead his readers. He claims the Colts have mainly struggled since 1978 when they have had more winning seasons than losing seasons or .500 seasons combined and have appeared in two Super Bowls. Gregg will talk in this TMQ about trade secrets of TMQ, but Gregg's intentions of misleading his readers who won't do the research behind his claims are not a secret.
Firing the head coach as winter begins gives customers a reason to believe the next season won't be as bad, and to pull out their credit cards. Some memorable NFL firings:
But it's okay to fire these coaches because they aren't providing good entertainment, right? So firing the head coach is the right thing to do, unless Gregg wants to make it look like the owner is shifting blame.
Lovie Smith was fired by the Bears at the end of 2012, when Chicago had just gone 10-6; as he was shown the door, Smith had an 84-66 record in Chicago. But the NFL's goofy playoff format gave two 10-6 teams home postseason games while telling the Bears to shut it down. Smith was scapegoated for the goofy format that was beyond his control, and given cab fare. The Bears are 13-19 since and just fired Trestman, Smith's replacement, along with Phil Emery, who fired Smith.
Here goes Gregg leaving out information again. Lovie Smith was hired by the Buccaneers this past offseason and he led them to a 2-14 season and the #1 overall pick in the draft. Of course Gregg leaves that out when talking about how bad the Bears have been without Smith. Smith isn't a terrible head coach, but Gregg conveniently leaves out Lovie Smith's lack of success during his first season in Tampa Bay when pointing out the Bears' record under Trestman.
Jimmy Johnson was fired by Jerry Jones after winning two Super Bowls: Jones' nose was out of joint because he wanted all credit for himself. The Boys, 7-1 in the postseason under Johnson, are 6-8 in the postseason since Johnson was cashiered.
Of course the Cowboys also won a Super Bowl two years after firing Jimmy Johnson. What do you know, Gregg leaves that part out.
John Fox was let go by Carolina in 2010 despite a Super Bowl appearance and a 5-3 postseason record; the Panthers have not won a playoff game since.
The Panthers won a playoff game five days after Gregg wrote this. So what does that mean? It was fine to not extend Fox's contract? And no, John Fox was not "let go" by the Panthers. He wasn't fired, yet Gregg constantly has insisted Fox was fired. He was not. His contract wasn't renewed because the direction he wanted to go with the Panthers wasn't the direction the owner wanted to go. Jerry Richardson wanted to build a team that made back-to-back playoff appearances, which isn't something John Fox was able to do. Guess what? Due to being in a shitty division the Panthers did make back-to-back playoff appearances! John Fox is happy and the Panthers are (temporarily) happy.
Tom Coughlin started the Jaguars as an expansion franchise, took them to four playoff appearances in the team's first five seasons, then was fired after a couple of off years. Management's all-caps view seemed to be: WHAT DO YOU MEAN WE'RE NOT IN THE PLAYOFFS EVERY YEAR! Coughlin went on to coach the Giants to two Super Bowl trophies; Jax has not had a winning-record coach since.
By the way, as my wife points out to me "a couple" is two. The Jaguars had three off years in a row. They went 7-9, 6-10, and 6-10 from 2000-2002. That's not a couple off years in a row, that's three off years in a row.
The Southeastern Conference is the college organization most similar to the NFL, and since 1978 -- we're using that year because it was when the FBS formed -- among the 12 current SEC member schools, the head coach has changed 84 times. That's a 1-in-5.1 chance of the head coach being shown the door, nearly as bad as the NFL. The Big 12 in that period has shown a 1-in-8.5 chance of the head coach being tossed overboard.
I wonder if the SEC has the highest chance of a head coach being fired, over not only that time span, but in recorded history. INCLUDING THE TRIASSIC PERIOD.
Don't feel sorry for the newbies. NFL and big-college coaches are very well paid for the ritual humiliations they undergo. Wouldn't you want to be the next Jets head coach even if you knew it would all coming crashing down in angry recriminations a couple of years later?
I don't think anyone does feel sorry for these coaches, Gregg. Where do you get the idea these head coaches are gaining sympathy for being fired?
In other pro football news, the NFL's goofy postseason setup has Carolina, a losing team, hosting a playoff contest while five winning teams, including 10-6 Philadelphia, don't reach the playoffs. Many respond by saying, "Well, that's the format." But why is it the format?
I don't love it either, but it is the format because the NFL says that's the format.
With eight four-team divisions each assured a home playoff game, every NFL owner goes into the season knowing his or her team has a 25 percent chance of hosting a postseason party, no matter how poorly the team may perform. Pure socialism!
The NFL isn't the only sport that does this. So socialism is prevalent throughout sports.
As for who will make the Super Bowl, TMQ's regular-season finale Authentic Games Index comes to a clear prediction. See below.
But I thought that metric was just for kicks and is purely unscientific? That's what Gregg has told us when it looked like the Authentic Games metric would get the Super Bowl pick incorrect. As I predicted, if the metric gets the correct Super Bowl pairing then Gregg will be glad to mention that the metric worked again this year (after different tries each week of course to get the pairing correct) and tout how it may be unscientific but it works...until next year when it doesn't work and he's all like, "Nah, it's just for shits and giggles. Why so serious?"
Cleveland leading 10-6 at Baltimore midway through the fourth quarter, the Ravens, who dropped their final two games in 2013 to miss the postseason, were in danger of doing the same in 2014. On first-and-10, Joe Flacco saw a "shallow" Cover 2, safeties close to the line of scrimmage because Cleveland expected run. Flacco audibled to a go route to Torrey Smith, who blew past a shallow safety for a 53-yard completion. Touchdown one snap later and the defending champions from 2012 were on their way to the postseason of 2014.
I think Gregg means highly-drafted, highly-paid glory boy Joe Flacco threw the ball to highly-drafted glory boy Torrey Smith. Of course highly-drafted Joe Haden had tight coverage on Smith, but Haden is a cornerback and not a safety as Gregg indicates. Small details like this that show Gregg doesn't pay attention to what he's writing shouldn't call into question any other facts in TMQ though, should it? The important part is the play Gregg is discussing, not if any of the facts are correct as he describes them.
Cheer-babe professionalism was a huge factor the Nevermores' comeback. Professionalism in this context means skin or at least skin-tight; scantily attired cheerleaders propitiate the football gods. Kickoff temperature 54 degrees, the Baltimore cheerleaders came out in two-piece warm-weather numbers, which caused the football gods to smile upon their team.
You are creepy. Gregg will continue talking about how the NFL exploits their cheerleaders in TMQ, all while ogling them and encouraging these exploited cheerleaders to wear less clothing because he believes it helps their team win more games.
As for the Browns, they hold two first-round picks in the upcoming draft, plus other extra selections. Fans may wish Cleveland had spent some of this bounty to improve the team right now and end its 12-season playoff drought.
You mean like trade up into the first round of the draft to grab a player they think can help their team, as they have two of out of the last three NFL Drafts? Or should the Browns spend a draft pick on a quarterback, as they have done in two of the last three NFL Drafts? The Browns aren't a bad team and they have used their draft picks to become a better team.
Seattle and St. Louis tied to start the fourth quarter, on second-and-long Les Mouflons tried to set up a screen. The tailback was covered, so Shaun Hill threw at the back's feet seeking a deliberate incompletion: defensive tackle Jordan Hill dove and intercepted the ball. A few plays later a touchdown put the defending champions ahead to stay.
Doesn't Gregg mean undrafted, unwanted Shaun Hill threw an interception and third round pick from a football factory school Jordan Hill intercepted the ball?
A moment after that, Hill threw a pick-six to linebacker Bruce Irvin.
An undrafted free agent threw an interception to first round pick glory boy Bruce Irvin. Isn't it weird how draft position doesn't become important in these two situations? If Sam Bradford had thrown these interceptions then I'm betting draft position would suddenly become important.
Authentic Games Standings: Around Thanksgiving, the Cardinals were first in Authentic Games and had the inside track for first seed, then the first-ever Super Bowl on a team's home field.
This is what happens when you use a metric that predicts what will happen two months from now, but the metric uses a constantly changing and arbitrary set of rules to make this prediction.
The elimination of Houston, Kansas City and San Diego causes a major shakeup in the Authentic standings -- though eliminated 10-6 Philadelphia remains Authentic while 7-8-1 Carolina is barred entry despite hosting a playoff contest. The Eagles performed in an Authentic manner, the Panthers did not, though benefiting from NFL socialism.
How can a metric where Gregg pulls teams in and out of the metric, which affects the underlying data and results, not be an authentic metric? This is unthinkable.
What's interesting is that Gregg calls his metric the "Authentic Games metric" and there is very little authentic about the metric.
The biggest effect on the standings is that Denver plummets from 6-3 last week to 2-3, losing four wins over the now-discarded Bolts and Chiefs. Seattle rises to 5-1 as its defeats by those clubs no longer matter.
I don't even know what to say at this point. I think the pointlessness speaks for itself.
The Authentic Games index clearly taps Pittsburgh and Seattle as the Super Bowl pairing. TMQ's gut feeling continues to be New England versus Seattle.
That's what TMQ's "gut" says. This is not to be confused with Gregg's real prediction before the season of Denver-New Orleans or his alternative pick of Seattle-Indianapolis. At some point, out of these four picks, Gregg will get one correct and he will be very proud of himself.
My Non-Authentic Games standings have revealed the following Super Bowl matchups so far:
Packers and Broncos
Saints and Dolphins
Packers and Patriots
Eagles and Bills
Rams and Texans
Carolina-Pittsburgh
Dallas-Houston
After Week 17, the final Non-Authentic Games standings the Super Bowl pick will be Carolina-Denver. I can't wait for one of these picks to be right and it will just prove what a great metric the Non-Authentic Games standings can be.
Reaching third-and-goal at the 1, the Bills put six offensive linemen on field, then split 6-6, 330-pound tackle Chris Hairston, who reported eligible, out wide covered by a skinny cornerback. As New England pointed at the wide giant, Buffalo ran up the middle for a touchdown.
Did the Bills "do a little dance" before scoring this touchdown? If not, how did they manage to gain short yardage without "doing a little dance"? That's how Gregg has told his readers that a team can convert on short yardage.
Over the years TMQ has pounded the table regarding standard phrases of political bloviation such as addressing audiences of people whose names you don't even know as "my friends," and constant use of "frankly" -- are you lying at other times? -- plus its superfluous intensifier "quite frankly." At this point, a United States senator ordering lunch says, "My friends, acting without fear or favor, I'll have the turkey sandwich." White House spokespersons say, "Quite frankly, we hope for peace on Earth."
Constant invocation of "the American people" seems to raise the stakes. It suggests either that, like ObamaCare advisers, people at the top think people at the bottom are too stupid to realize they're being played; or that people at the top have such runaway egos they actually believe they personally speak for the entire American people.
Sportswriters do this too by using the word "we" as much as politicians seem to use "the American people." It seems huge egos and believing they speak for a large population of people are (is?) something sportswriters and politicians have in common.
Reader MacGregor Obergfell of Columbus, Ohio, reports that he was in a JoAnn Fabrics on the day after Christmas and saw "an Easter display front and center."
I'm calling bullshit. That's not a real name. MacGregor Obergfell. Not real.
The New Era Pinstripe Bowl -- there was no old-era Pinstripe Bowl, New Era is a cap company -- was as good as football gets.
People know New Era is a cap company. People throughout record history know this. INCLUDING THE TRIASSIC PERIOD.
The Golden Age of Radio Isn't Over: Reader Will Martin asks, "Many of your insights seem to come from watching the actual games. Where do you get your film and how many hours do you watch?"
Will, the fact you call what Gregg writes as being "insights" shows me that you are too far gone to be helped. Godspeed.
(pushes Will out to sea on an iceberg)
One of the founding insights of Tuesday Morning Quarterback was that football coverage spends too much time on stars, owners and coaches, not enough on what actually happens during games. (This may be true of coverage of other sports as well, football is the only sport I follow closely enough to feel sure.) There are 100 words written or spoken about what might happen in any given football game for each one word regarding what did happen.
I'm sure Gregg's quoted amount of 100 words written or spoken about what might happen in a football game for each word regarding what did happen in a football game is complete fact. This isn't a guess by Gregg at all. Anyone who watches ESPN knows they never discuss what just happened during a game. Ever.
Eventually I became convinced -- and don't take this too hard, writers and broadcasters whose whole lives are tied up in commenting on football -- that some football writers and on-air football personnel don't spend much time watching games.
I can barely keep this spoiler in anymore. Gregg reveals in a second he doesn't watch every game either. So the column he writes as the antidote for columns written by writers that don't watch every football game is now a product of Gregg not watching every football game too.
Both may be interesting, but football outcomes are as much determined by tactics on plays that don't make highlight reels as by the occasional spectacular run or catch. And the structure of big-media sports coverage is that some writers and on-air personnel choose (or are assigned) one particular game to pay attention to per week, ignoring the rest except for highlights.
Which, by the way, covering the highlights is all that Gregg does in TMQ every week. He discusses a specific play for certain games, but that's only covering the highlights of a certain game, even if he attempts (and fails at times) to determine tactics on a play.
Thus at the outset, TMQ resolved, first, to write about what actually happens on the field and, second, to watch every game.
Gregg doesn't seem to understand the first part entirely and he doesn't watch every game. In the end, TMQ is a column about highlights from some games where Gregg attempts to criticize coaches and players for certain plays that fit into a specific criteria Gregg writes about almost every week (too much blitzing, not enough "doing a little dance" in short yardage situations, cowardly coaching tactics, etc). So TMQ is a column where Gregg doesn't spend much time watching every game and talks about highlights that fit criteria required to be in TMQ. Basically, it's not that far off from what's it is supposed to be the antidote to.
I've always kept the first resolve. Until 2011, I kept the second -- I watched at least most of every NFL game, and each column had at least one item about the tactics employed in every game that week. But keeping the second resolve was a ton of work, considering sportswriting is my avocation, not my profession. Beginning with the 2012 season, I stopped promising an item on every game -- though I've continued to produce items on around three-quarters of NFL contests, plus many college games.
Gregg can write what he wants to write. It's his column. I do find it interesting he talks about how he writes about "many college games" as if that makes up for not producing items on every NFL game. TMQ is supposed to be a column about the NFL. Why not spend the time spent watching the college games to watch NFL games? It's like a restaurant who keeps prices the same but provides smaller portions. Then that restaurant claims they don't give you as much food, but they have free refills on drinks now.
So Will Martin asks -- how do I do it?
Will, the answer is: Trade secret. There are two trade secrets supporting Tuesday Morning Quarterback: How to contact the football gods, and how to understand what happens on the field in most games and still have time to live a regular life. I've figured out both secrets. If I gave either away, I'd only be creating competition for myself.
Since there are no football gods, and it's bullshit to claim otherwise, I'll just assume Gregg uses some form of bullshit to claim to know what happens on the field in most games. In reality, I'm betting there is someone paid to find Gregg certain plays that can appear in TMQ and then they are forwarded on to Gregg to appear in TMQ. My best guess is one of the trade secrets is that Gregg doesn't understand what happens on the football field, but what he does put in TMQ is done with assistance from another person. It would explain why some facts Gregg presents about certain games and plays aren't entirely accurate, as well as where some of the misinformation comes from, if Gregg has someone describing to him a play that he then describes to his audience.
But I will give a tip about part of how I do it because it's a tip many football enthusiasts could benefit from: every Sunday I devote at least two hours to listening to games on the radio.
Wait, so Gregg originally wrote TMQ because too many on-air personnel don't spend time watching games, but he gets some of his information from on-air personnel who don't spend enough time watching games? You know, that does make some sense that Gregg would do that.
This leads to a key bit of TMQ advice: try watching a football game with the sound turned off. Undistracted by patter, sound effects and anecdotes about Jay-Z or Katherine Heigl, you'll find your senses instantly take in more of what's actually happening on the field.
I often do. Here is a key bit of advice from BotB: Understand that NFL teams don't only play man coverage and sometimes a cornerback is supposed to let a receiver go past him. Sometimes a cornerback isn't making the mistake of looking in the backfield but focusing on the action in front of him because that's his responsibility.
Would City of Tampa have been better off with the second choice? There may be pressure on the franchise to select Florida sports celeb Jameis Winston. He's not a Lovie Smith kind of guy, and has tremendous meltdown potential. Marcus Mariota will be tempting, but his style of play is so similar to that of Colin Kaepernick that the worry would be a Kaepernick-style flameout.
I don't know even what I want to say about this. Marcus Mariota is a much better passer in college than Colin Kaepernick was. And I'm not quite ready to say that Colin Kaepernick has flamed out. Of course, Gregg will forget he wrote this if Kaepernick starts off the 2015 season playing well.
At the second overall selection, there will be far less pressure on whoever is taken.
And the second overall selection is also the second selection, meaning the Buccaneers couldn't have the option of choosing whichever football player they wanted to choose. Plus, there is still a lot of pressure on the second overall pick. This is an especially rich comment coming from Gregg Easterbrook, a guy who is sure to mention any play where a highly-drafted player screws up. There is always pressure on a first round draft pick, and a lot of pressure on a player drafted #2 overall. I think Gregg couldn't be more wrong in making this statement.
Reader Konrad Miller of Austin, Texas, writes, "NFL officials mainly do a good job, but there are so many high-profile botched calls that perhaps crowd-sourcing is the solution.
Wow. I see terrible ideas aren't just exclusively Gregg's dominion. His readers can chip in with terrible ideas too.
"When a call is challenged, put the decision in the hands of viewers at home. They'd see two views of the replay -- that's all a referee should ever see since if you need to watch more than two times, the outcome is not indisputable -- then be given numbers to text for their votes. Sitting in the comfort and relative peace of our living room, with large HD televisions, fans are probably getting a superior view of the game anyway. We don't have the added pressures of the crowd or head coaches demanding attention.
Unfortunately people who watch football are also drinking, which affects their judgment.
"As for team bias, if generally equal numbers of opposing fans are watching each game, their bias would cancel out in the voting.
That's a massive "if." Generally equal numbers of opposing fans are not watching each game. Not to mention, fans who may hate one of the teams will also be voting. So this horrible, terrible idea assumes that each NFL team has an equal number of fans watching the game (which is impossible to actually believe is ever true) and those who aren't fans of either team will either (a) not vote, (b) be impartial when voting, or (c) be equal in number as to how many unreasonably dislike one team over the other.
Basically, the reason this idea may be the worst idea ever,* is because if the Jaguars and Cowboys are playing, and there is a replay challenge, then people who hate the Cowboys will vote in whatever direction hurts the Cowboys as much as possible. While this is happening the fact there are many more Cowboys fans than Jaguars fans would mean Cowboys fans would vote in the direction that benefits their team the most. It would be chaos and would not ever equal out. Congratulations Konrad Miller from Austin, Texas, you have the worst idea ever.*
*For this week only.
Technology could be employed to prevent fans at the game from voting, since they'd always side with the home team. Having thousands if not millions of people vote on a challenge would make the NFL more engaging to viewers -- and by calling on the wisdom of crowds, lead to better rulings. Plus it couldn't take any longer than the current system."
But this system would provide more inaccurate results based upon which teams have the most fans that love or hate that team, which obviously counts for nothing and ruins the entire point of a replay system designed to get to the truth behind what happened on a play. The idea of putting replays in the hands of viewers at home would take any bias the officials have and insert the bias of millions of people into the equation. There will never be equal numbers of opposing fans watching each game and it introduces so many biases into the equation this idea should never be spoken of again.
Of an item on long tracking codes -- the 22-digit USPS tracking code might be sufficient to assign to a unique number to every star in the universe -- many readers noted the codes don't merely identify the package. Scott Yonts of Auburn, Maine, wrote, "Long tracking numbers are kind of misleading because they contain several pieces of data. For instance, there is a unique package identifier in the 18-character tracking codes used by UPS, but that's only seven of the characters. The additional characters identify the shipper and the shipping service, among other things."
So will Gregg write, "That is information that I did not know" or "I can see why UPS uses this 22-digit tracking code now" in response to his complaint being countered with a real reason why his complaint is invalid? Of course not! He moves on without writing another word about this.
Many readers including Dorothy Hutchinson of Mahwah, New Jersey, noted this concern just landed on the front page of the New York Times. The paper reports that over the last year Christie -- Governor Abutment to this column -- "spent 152 days, or 42 percent of his time, outside New Jersey." While wagging his finger at others regarding public spending, Christie methodically wastes taxpayers' money to promote himself.
You will have to speak up. Chris Christie can't hear you all the way in Dallas while sitting in Jerry Jones' box.
Will the new College Football Playoff cause declining interest in bowls?
Nope, the ratings were still great.
Back in the day, bowls were financed by ticket sales. In the cable-TV era, broadcast rights mean more than the gate, so a bowl can play to a weak house yet be a financial success. Still, early attendance figures aren't impressive. The Zaxby's Heart of Dallas Bowl -- successor to the TicketCity Bowl, surely you knew that -- drew just 31,297 spectators in the 92,100-seat Cotton Bowl. The San Diego County Credit Union Poinsettia Bowl -- which really needs a longer name -- played to just 33,077 spectators though it was Navy versus San Diego State, both colleges having local interest. Just 34,014 spectators were present for the R+L Carriers New Orleans Bowl, played in a 73,208-seat facility, though it featured Louisiana-Lafayette, a local-interest school.
So because the broadcast rights mean so much, then there won't be declining interest in bowls due to the College Football Playoff. This is true even if attendance for bowls isn't great. It's not like the R+L Carriers New Orleans Bowl is affected one way or another by the College Football Playoff. Attendance will be what it will be based on the matchup, regardless if there is a football playoff to choose a champion or manatees choose the champion.
The Football Gods Chortled, Indeed: Indianapolis at Tennessee scoreless, the Colts had first-and-goal on the Flaming Thumbtacks' 7. Coby Fleener lined up as an inline tight end on the right. As Andrew Luck play-faked, Fleener pretended to block, then paused for a beat, then ran into the left flat uncovered for an easy touchdown. Fleener never blocks -- how could Tennessee fall for a fake block by a guy who never blocks?
Yes, Fleener NEVER blocks. Ever. So a defensive player should just cover Fleener on every play and never worry about whether he is going to block them or not.
There is a difference between a player who never blocks and a player who isn't very good at blocking. Gregg doesn't seem to understand that difference. If a player isn't very good at blocking, then it doesn't mean the defense should just assume he's never blocking.
Next Week: If Carolina reaches the Super Bowl with a record of 10-8-1, will the world end?
I certainly hope that we get to find out.
Thursday, April 11, 2013
2 comments Terence Moore Uses a Train Analogy to Explain His Opposition to Instant Replay, Thereby Assuring His Choice in Transportation Analogies Are Also Not Modern
Terence Moore hates the expansion of instant replay. He has stated this on repeated occasions here, here, and here. I'm not sure if Terence Moore has become my new Joe Morgan or not, but Terence does feel very strongly about the expansion of replay. He is strongly against the expansion of replay for various reasons. He says he is a purist (which I think is a polite way of saying he hates change), he thinks the umpires already have a tough enough job so why make their job easier, and Terence says a bad call hasn't changed an entire playoff series so one or two missed calls really aren't a big deal. I tend to disagree with nearly all of these reasons. Today, Terence resigns himself to the fact replay will be expanded and then he uses a train analogy to explain his opposition to expanded replay. The idea of Terence using a train analogy fits perfectly in my opinion. I bet he is specifically referring to a steam engine train and not these newfangled express trains. In fact, Terence is probably not even aware there is a more efficient mode of transportation than taking the train available.
According to a recent report, Major League Baseball is no longer merely considering expanding replay for fair/foul calls and those involving possible trapped balls, but also plays at the plate and on the bases.
Combining this with Major League Baseball streaming every game over the Interwebs, HOW CAN WE JUDGE PLAYERS BY WATCHING THEM ON A COMPUTER AND NOT BEING AT THE GAME? THE INTERNET RUINS EVERYTHING!
We're in the final days.
Good thing Terence isn't being over-dramatic about this.
"Major League Baseball may expand replay! Stock up food for your bomb shelters, the end is nigh!"
OK, I'm biased here, because when it comes to baseball, I'm the world's biggest traditionalist.
When did traditionalist start to mean "resistant to any type of change"? I consider myself to be a baseball traditionalist. I'm not a huge fan of the designated hitter, but I also understand there are certain improvements that can be made to the game of baseball which won't change the basic way the sport is played and can make the game better.
Being a traditionalist shouldn't mean that a person is resistant to any type of change to the game of baseball. Would being a traditionalist in the 1940's mean not believing African-Americans have the right to play in the majors? Is being a traditionalist mean a person would have been against any type of expansion of the game into other countries (Canada, for example)? Being a traditionalist shouldn't mean having a resistance to any type of change.
Except for flannel uniforms and, well … I can't think of anything else, I'm for keeping the game about the way it was after Jackie Robinson broke the color barrier.
Well, of course. Being a person who never wants anything to change it only makes sense to not want your favorite sport to ever adapt or change to evolutions in technology. What could be better for the game of baseball than to be perpetually stuck in the 1940's?
No designated hitter rule. That's enough right there, but I'll continue: grass fields only, ballparks without roofs, only sunshine at Wrigley Field, pitchers who deliver pitches sometime during this century, hitters who rarely strike out over 100 times per season.
Wishing for pitchers who deliver pitches sometime during this century and hitters who rarely strike out over 100 times in a season is being grumpy and old, not a traditionalist.
Instant replay? Ugh. It's already here regarding home run calls, and to be honest, I haven't had a problem with that one.
But you are a traditionalist! You are for keeping the game like it was after Jackie Robinson broke the color barrier (but not for keeping the game of baseball how it was before Jackie Robinson, of course. Terence picks and chooses when the "traditionalist" version of baseball started as it fits his needs). How can you like instant replay for home run calls but don't want instant replay expanded beyond that? A real traditionalist like yourself wouldn't want any changes to the game since the 1940's.
The same goes for instant replay to determine fair/foul and trap/catch calls. That was approved in baseball's latest Collective Bargaining Agreement.
So anything agreed to in the latest Collective Bargaining Agreement is a perfectly fine change? So shouldn't Terence Moore call himself a "Collective Bargaining Agreement Traditionalist"?
The problem is, expanding instant replay beyond those three situations would remove so much from the game -- beginning and ending with the charming tradition of umpires sometimes getting it wrong after overwhelmingly getting it right.
I'm a traditionalist in that I don't think umpires getting calls incorrect is very charming. I think MLB should do whatever they can (without changing the game too much) to ensure the umpires calls are going to be correct. I don't favor replay for balls and strikes but I don't see why it can't be expanded to calls on the basepaths. It doesn't demean the umpires and the job they do in any way, while ensuring the calls on the field are correct.
Since teams used to travel only by train around the Major Leagues, I'll continue with a railroad analogy.
Well of course, is there any other type of transportation? I guess I should just be glad Terence isn't using a horse-and-buggy analogy.
The train has left the station regarding the expanded use of instant replay in baseball, and that engine is charging downhill.
But is the dining car serving American food? I'd like to think the dining car of this engine charging downhill is MLB's use of instant replay on home runs, fair/foul balls and trapped/caught balls. If so, then expanding the use of instant replay is the train's dining car choosing to serve Italian and Mexican food as well. Let's expand outside the traditional realms of food being served on this train.
So the rest of us have two choices: We can try to stand in front of the train as we get flattened worse than a brushback pitch to the ear, or we can sigh while hopping on board.
How are you going to get on a train that is charging downhill? That doesn't make sense. At least be consistent with the analogy and say that you will jump on top of the train as it starts to go under a tunnel.
According to Torre, baseball officials will travel to the World Baseball Classic games in Miami this month and also to various Spring Training sites to study how those officials would implement an expanded replay system in the Major Leagues.
In (seemingly) every column that Terence Moore writes he contradicts his argument at some point. He's about to do it again. He has already sort of contradicted himself by saying he is a traditionalist who doesn't like any changes to the game after the 1940's, but also says he hasn't minded the expansion of replay to home runs, fair/foul balls, and trapped/caught balls.
That's fine. But baseball should have those officials continue their study beyond the next few weeks.
Terence hates the use of instant replay in baseball, but if MLB is going to test instant replay he thinks they should do so during the regular season, not during Spring Training and the World Baseball Classic. If Terence is so against the expanded use of instant replay wouldn't it make more sense for him to believe baseball should test it out during games that don't count...you know, him being a baseball purist and all?
Nothing against the Classic or Spring Training, but games that count toward winning divisions, pennants and World Series championships are different.
This is true, and this is also why MLB should not test out expanded replay during games that count. I think exhibition games, despite the fact they don't perfectly simulate regular season games, are the best time to try new rule changes. If the rules don't work, then the games that count aren't affected. I would think a guy who is a purist wouldn't want rule changes being tried out during the regular season. Of course, few things Terence Moore says make sense to me.
Players operate at a heightened level during the regular season, and their intensity jumps even more in the postseason.
So baseball officials need to study the effects of expanded instant replay against the that backdrop.
So let me get Terence's position straight...
1. He doesn't like instant replay in baseball because he's a traditionalist and wants baseball to be like it was in the 1940's.
2. Terence doesn't mind certain uses of instant replay even though this contradicts him saying he likes the game of baseball how it was during the 1940's.
3. Terence does not favor the expansion of replay to include calls on the basepaths.
4. Terence thinks the expansion of replay will cause too much change to the game of baseball and affect how the game is played.
5. If MLB does expand replay to include calls on the basepaths then they should test out this expansion of replay during the regular season when the games count the most.
I'm not sure I entirely get these points of view. Shouldn't expanded replay be tested, if it doesn't work well, when it would not affect the outcome of games that count? Yes, conditions are different during the regular season, but the use of the instant replay isn't different. It doesn't matter how intense players are in terms of whether expanded replay works for the game of baseball or not.
In addition, by baseball officials pushing their study past Opening Day and through late October, they would see the plusses and the minuses of expanded instant replay for every ballpark, especially since each would be affected by the move in unique ways.
If baseball used expanded replay for the entire 2013 season, including the playoffs, they really wouldn't be "testing" it would they? Wouldn't they have essentially adopted expanded instant replay at that point?
First, according to an ESPN.com story, baseball wants to determine whether to copy the NFL's challenge-flag silliness. In that league, each team gets two challenges per game, and if a challenge fails, that team losses a timeout.
Baseball officials shouldn't consider that one, and not just because timeouts are unlimited in their game.
Each MLB team gets two challenges during a game and that's it. There, I fixed it.
The challenge-flag system is even too clumsy for the NFL. There often is the comical sight of a coach trying to yank the flag from his pocket,
Then MLB should not use flags for their challenges. The manager can signal the umpire he wants to challenge a call. This is very nitpicking stuff when arguing against the use of expanded replay in baseball. Plus, I don't think NFL coaches look stupid throwing the flag.
If baseball goes the expanded replay route, it can make life smoother for everybody by just having a designated replay person to say a call should be reviewed.
Just give the coaches two challenges and have the umpire look at the replay. It won't take long at all. Seriously, it will very easy upon the first or second viewing to see if the call was correct or not.
The designated replay person would sit in the press-box area.
BUT THE REPLAY PERSON CAN'T EAT THE PRESS-BOX FOOD! I HOPE MLB MAKES THIS ABUNDANTLY CLEAR!
A group of maybe three people would serve as judge and jury for every replay around the Major Leagues. And the latter would operate from a central location.
What the hell is all this? Terence Moore makes no sense to me. He is against the use of expanded replay, but then he sets up an expanded replay system that is overly elaborate and complicated. It's like he fundamentally doesn't understand replay in baseball can be easy. A manager (instead of coming out to argue the call) signals he wants to challenge the call and then the head umpire checks out the replay and confirms or overturns the call. It will take maybe 2 minutes to complete the process if the umpire and manager walk slow. We don't need a jury of the umpire's peers to serve on a committee that will hand down a ruling on the call.
Which actually brings us to more questions: What plays beyond the current ones would be eligible for review? And how would you keep games from lasting for hours, days, weeks?
It's not brain science. Each team gets two challenges and the time challenging/reviewing the call will replace the time usually spent by the umpire and manager arguing with each other.
Sorry, but I forgot I'm still on that train, which means I'll accept the fact that baseball officials eventually will decide to use instant replay for safe/out calls.
Actually, if you were still on the "no replay" train then you wouldn't accept the fact baseball officials eventually will use instant replay for safe/out calls.
I'll offer a humble suggestion, though: They should restrict those reviews to home plate. This isn't to say such calls are more important than those on the bases.
Actually, that's exactly what this suggestion says. It says calls at home plate are more important than calls on other parts of the field.
It is to say this would save time. No matter how much supporters of instant replay say otherwise, any expansion of their system will extend the length of games -- and to a noticeable degree.
Terence has no proof to back this up. He could be correct, but merely saying the games will be lengthened doesn't serve as proof this statement is correct. If there are four replays and each one takes two minutes then the game will be lengthened by eight minutes. So games could be lengthened by only eight minutes and that's not even counting the time ordinarily spent with the manager arguing with the umpire. In some games there may be zero challenges so the game won't be lengthened at all. Stating instant replay will lengthen games may be true to a small degree, but it won't be any more noticeable than the one minute between pitches that a pitcher takes.
Managers still will be managers.
I mean, regardless of the final decision of replay officials, you just know more than a few managers will continue that baseball tradition of going nose-to-nose with the closest umpire.
I really don't know if this is true. What will the manager be talking about? Managers argue now because they tend to believe the call on the basepaths was the incorrect call. If replay backs up the original call then will the manager really take the time to argue with the umpire? I am sure some managers will, but once the replay has confirmed the call there isn't much to argue over.
Players won't stop yelling, either.
Maybe I'm naive, but I think replay will reduce the amount of arguing. Since replay won't be expanded to balls and strikes, of course players will still argue those calls.
I got an idea. Why not leave things alone?
Because taking an extra minute or two to ensure the calls on the field are correct makes sense when the technology is available to do so.
But I'm still on that train.
Terence is on this train just out of pure stubbornness. He knows umpires get calls wrong, which tells me there is an argument for expanded replay. The idea a 3 hour baseball game will be lengthened by a few challenges to the umpires' calls seems silly to me. Terence is on the train, but unfortunately it is 2013 and nobody rides trains as much anymore.
According to a recent report, Major League Baseball is no longer merely considering expanding replay for fair/foul calls and those involving possible trapped balls, but also plays at the plate and on the bases.
Combining this with Major League Baseball streaming every game over the Interwebs, HOW CAN WE JUDGE PLAYERS BY WATCHING THEM ON A COMPUTER AND NOT BEING AT THE GAME? THE INTERNET RUINS EVERYTHING!
We're in the final days.
Good thing Terence isn't being over-dramatic about this.
"Major League Baseball may expand replay! Stock up food for your bomb shelters, the end is nigh!"
OK, I'm biased here, because when it comes to baseball, I'm the world's biggest traditionalist.
When did traditionalist start to mean "resistant to any type of change"? I consider myself to be a baseball traditionalist. I'm not a huge fan of the designated hitter, but I also understand there are certain improvements that can be made to the game of baseball which won't change the basic way the sport is played and can make the game better.
Being a traditionalist shouldn't mean that a person is resistant to any type of change to the game of baseball. Would being a traditionalist in the 1940's mean not believing African-Americans have the right to play in the majors? Is being a traditionalist mean a person would have been against any type of expansion of the game into other countries (Canada, for example)? Being a traditionalist shouldn't mean having a resistance to any type of change.
Except for flannel uniforms and, well … I can't think of anything else, I'm for keeping the game about the way it was after Jackie Robinson broke the color barrier.
Well, of course. Being a person who never wants anything to change it only makes sense to not want your favorite sport to ever adapt or change to evolutions in technology. What could be better for the game of baseball than to be perpetually stuck in the 1940's?
No designated hitter rule. That's enough right there, but I'll continue: grass fields only, ballparks without roofs, only sunshine at Wrigley Field, pitchers who deliver pitches sometime during this century, hitters who rarely strike out over 100 times per season.
Wishing for pitchers who deliver pitches sometime during this century and hitters who rarely strike out over 100 times in a season is being grumpy and old, not a traditionalist.
Instant replay? Ugh. It's already here regarding home run calls, and to be honest, I haven't had a problem with that one.
But you are a traditionalist! You are for keeping the game like it was after Jackie Robinson broke the color barrier (but not for keeping the game of baseball how it was before Jackie Robinson, of course. Terence picks and chooses when the "traditionalist" version of baseball started as it fits his needs). How can you like instant replay for home run calls but don't want instant replay expanded beyond that? A real traditionalist like yourself wouldn't want any changes to the game since the 1940's.
The same goes for instant replay to determine fair/foul and trap/catch calls. That was approved in baseball's latest Collective Bargaining Agreement.
So anything agreed to in the latest Collective Bargaining Agreement is a perfectly fine change? So shouldn't Terence Moore call himself a "Collective Bargaining Agreement Traditionalist"?
The problem is, expanding instant replay beyond those three situations would remove so much from the game -- beginning and ending with the charming tradition of umpires sometimes getting it wrong after overwhelmingly getting it right.
I'm a traditionalist in that I don't think umpires getting calls incorrect is very charming. I think MLB should do whatever they can (without changing the game too much) to ensure the umpires calls are going to be correct. I don't favor replay for balls and strikes but I don't see why it can't be expanded to calls on the basepaths. It doesn't demean the umpires and the job they do in any way, while ensuring the calls on the field are correct.
Since teams used to travel only by train around the Major Leagues, I'll continue with a railroad analogy.
Well of course, is there any other type of transportation? I guess I should just be glad Terence isn't using a horse-and-buggy analogy.
The train has left the station regarding the expanded use of instant replay in baseball, and that engine is charging downhill.
But is the dining car serving American food? I'd like to think the dining car of this engine charging downhill is MLB's use of instant replay on home runs, fair/foul balls and trapped/caught balls. If so, then expanding the use of instant replay is the train's dining car choosing to serve Italian and Mexican food as well. Let's expand outside the traditional realms of food being served on this train.
So the rest of us have two choices: We can try to stand in front of the train as we get flattened worse than a brushback pitch to the ear, or we can sigh while hopping on board.
How are you going to get on a train that is charging downhill? That doesn't make sense. At least be consistent with the analogy and say that you will jump on top of the train as it starts to go under a tunnel.
According to Torre, baseball officials will travel to the World Baseball Classic games in Miami this month and also to various Spring Training sites to study how those officials would implement an expanded replay system in the Major Leagues.
In (seemingly) every column that Terence Moore writes he contradicts his argument at some point. He's about to do it again. He has already sort of contradicted himself by saying he is a traditionalist who doesn't like any changes to the game after the 1940's, but also says he hasn't minded the expansion of replay to home runs, fair/foul balls, and trapped/caught balls.
That's fine. But baseball should have those officials continue their study beyond the next few weeks.
Terence hates the use of instant replay in baseball, but if MLB is going to test instant replay he thinks they should do so during the regular season, not during Spring Training and the World Baseball Classic. If Terence is so against the expanded use of instant replay wouldn't it make more sense for him to believe baseball should test it out during games that don't count...you know, him being a baseball purist and all?
Nothing against the Classic or Spring Training, but games that count toward winning divisions, pennants and World Series championships are different.
This is true, and this is also why MLB should not test out expanded replay during games that count. I think exhibition games, despite the fact they don't perfectly simulate regular season games, are the best time to try new rule changes. If the rules don't work, then the games that count aren't affected. I would think a guy who is a purist wouldn't want rule changes being tried out during the regular season. Of course, few things Terence Moore says make sense to me.
Players operate at a heightened level during the regular season, and their intensity jumps even more in the postseason.
So baseball officials need to study the effects of expanded instant replay against the that backdrop.
So let me get Terence's position straight...
1. He doesn't like instant replay in baseball because he's a traditionalist and wants baseball to be like it was in the 1940's.
2. Terence doesn't mind certain uses of instant replay even though this contradicts him saying he likes the game of baseball how it was during the 1940's.
3. Terence does not favor the expansion of replay to include calls on the basepaths.
4. Terence thinks the expansion of replay will cause too much change to the game of baseball and affect how the game is played.
5. If MLB does expand replay to include calls on the basepaths then they should test out this expansion of replay during the regular season when the games count the most.
I'm not sure I entirely get these points of view. Shouldn't expanded replay be tested, if it doesn't work well, when it would not affect the outcome of games that count? Yes, conditions are different during the regular season, but the use of the instant replay isn't different. It doesn't matter how intense players are in terms of whether expanded replay works for the game of baseball or not.
In addition, by baseball officials pushing their study past Opening Day and through late October, they would see the plusses and the minuses of expanded instant replay for every ballpark, especially since each would be affected by the move in unique ways.
If baseball used expanded replay for the entire 2013 season, including the playoffs, they really wouldn't be "testing" it would they? Wouldn't they have essentially adopted expanded instant replay at that point?
First, according to an ESPN.com story, baseball wants to determine whether to copy the NFL's challenge-flag silliness. In that league, each team gets two challenges per game, and if a challenge fails, that team losses a timeout.
Baseball officials shouldn't consider that one, and not just because timeouts are unlimited in their game.
Each MLB team gets two challenges during a game and that's it. There, I fixed it.
The challenge-flag system is even too clumsy for the NFL. There often is the comical sight of a coach trying to yank the flag from his pocket,
Then MLB should not use flags for their challenges. The manager can signal the umpire he wants to challenge a call. This is very nitpicking stuff when arguing against the use of expanded replay in baseball. Plus, I don't think NFL coaches look stupid throwing the flag.
If baseball goes the expanded replay route, it can make life smoother for everybody by just having a designated replay person to say a call should be reviewed.
Just give the coaches two challenges and have the umpire look at the replay. It won't take long at all. Seriously, it will very easy upon the first or second viewing to see if the call was correct or not.
The designated replay person would sit in the press-box area.
BUT THE REPLAY PERSON CAN'T EAT THE PRESS-BOX FOOD! I HOPE MLB MAKES THIS ABUNDANTLY CLEAR!
A group of maybe three people would serve as judge and jury for every replay around the Major Leagues. And the latter would operate from a central location.
What the hell is all this? Terence Moore makes no sense to me. He is against the use of expanded replay, but then he sets up an expanded replay system that is overly elaborate and complicated. It's like he fundamentally doesn't understand replay in baseball can be easy. A manager (instead of coming out to argue the call) signals he wants to challenge the call and then the head umpire checks out the replay and confirms or overturns the call. It will take maybe 2 minutes to complete the process if the umpire and manager walk slow. We don't need a jury of the umpire's peers to serve on a committee that will hand down a ruling on the call.
Which actually brings us to more questions: What plays beyond the current ones would be eligible for review? And how would you keep games from lasting for hours, days, weeks?
It's not brain science. Each team gets two challenges and the time challenging/reviewing the call will replace the time usually spent by the umpire and manager arguing with each other.
Sorry, but I forgot I'm still on that train, which means I'll accept the fact that baseball officials eventually will decide to use instant replay for safe/out calls.
Actually, if you were still on the "no replay" train then you wouldn't accept the fact baseball officials eventually will use instant replay for safe/out calls.
I'll offer a humble suggestion, though: They should restrict those reviews to home plate. This isn't to say such calls are more important than those on the bases.
Actually, that's exactly what this suggestion says. It says calls at home plate are more important than calls on other parts of the field.
It is to say this would save time. No matter how much supporters of instant replay say otherwise, any expansion of their system will extend the length of games -- and to a noticeable degree.
Terence has no proof to back this up. He could be correct, but merely saying the games will be lengthened doesn't serve as proof this statement is correct. If there are four replays and each one takes two minutes then the game will be lengthened by eight minutes. So games could be lengthened by only eight minutes and that's not even counting the time ordinarily spent with the manager arguing with the umpire. In some games there may be zero challenges so the game won't be lengthened at all. Stating instant replay will lengthen games may be true to a small degree, but it won't be any more noticeable than the one minute between pitches that a pitcher takes.
Managers still will be managers.
I mean, regardless of the final decision of replay officials, you just know more than a few managers will continue that baseball tradition of going nose-to-nose with the closest umpire.
I really don't know if this is true. What will the manager be talking about? Managers argue now because they tend to believe the call on the basepaths was the incorrect call. If replay backs up the original call then will the manager really take the time to argue with the umpire? I am sure some managers will, but once the replay has confirmed the call there isn't much to argue over.
Players won't stop yelling, either.
Maybe I'm naive, but I think replay will reduce the amount of arguing. Since replay won't be expanded to balls and strikes, of course players will still argue those calls.
I got an idea. Why not leave things alone?
Because taking an extra minute or two to ensure the calls on the field are correct makes sense when the technology is available to do so.
But I'm still on that train.
Terence is on this train just out of pure stubbornness. He knows umpires get calls wrong, which tells me there is an argument for expanded replay. The idea a 3 hour baseball game will be lengthened by a few challenges to the umpires' calls seems silly to me. Terence is on the train, but unfortunately it is 2013 and nobody rides trains as much anymore.
Tuesday, May 22, 2012
4 comments MMQB Review: No Time for NFL News, Peter Is Off to England Edition
Peter King visited his brother in England over this last weekend. It sounds like he had a good time. Presumably England has Starbucks with the exactly right amount of employees so there is never a long wait, there is always free coffee available no matter what time you wake up at your hotel, no person dares to do anything crazy on the trains like look at their laptop or listen to music, and rental cars companies don't overcharge you for gas simply because you are too lazy to get gas before turning the rental car back in. I assume this because Peter seems to have no complaints, other than the mild espresso (but the milk was great!). This week Peter ponders many things. England must be a very thought-provoking country. He ponders LeSean McCoy's new contract, what Drew Brees is worth, and apparently he pondered how to get other people to write 25% of the column for him by including commencement addresses in MMQB. Enough with the introduction, let's get to the recap of all-cricket related festivities.
Before I get on the plane home, a few football notes, a lesson from Rod Smith, some commencement fragments and what the NFL can learn from sports over here.
So the English crowd of 30,000 or so, many of the men in suits and the women in fine dresses and heels, politely clapped when the West Indies batsman, Adrian Barath, scored four runs. Sitting halfway up in the stands, I asked my brother why they were cheering.
What a concept ... appreciating good play from the opposition.
Chipper Jones is being honored in some way or another in nearly every city he plays a road series in during this summer. It's excessive at this point, but this is an example of an American crowd appreciating good play from the opposition. Of course I wouldn't expect Peter to know this since Chipper Jones doesn't play for the Red Sox. Another brief example...Cardinals fans in St. Louis are remarkable for cheering for their team, while also showing respect and admiration for the competition. Maybe it is just a reputation more than reality, but I feel like they appreciate good play from the opposition.
I'll get back to that in this unorthodox column (Monday Morning Wicket Keeper, a few of the Twitter Worldlies suggested I call it today), but let's go football first.
Yeah, let's get this whole "football discussion" out of the way. Monday Morning Quarterback is a weekly column about Peter's life of course, and in no way should be considered to be about the NFL. We are interested in Peter and his life, not any NFL-related news he could give us.
What the LeSean McCoy signing came down to for the Eagles.
Keeping another member of "the Dream Team" of course. Now they just have to sign Mike Vick to a nine-figure deal...wait, the Eagles already did that?
The most amazing thing about McCoy is not how precocious he's been in his first three seasons, averaging 1,414 yards from scrimmage a season. It's that he's 23.
This is very picky, but I don't like it when the word "precocious" is used to refer to a grown man. I know in terms of the actual definition of the word, it can be used in the way Peter is referencing it, but the modern usage is for a child. I feel like we, as a society, should stick to calling children "precocious."
The Eagles signed him to a five-year deal Thursday, and five-year deals for running backs are always dangerous. But Steven Jackson will take his first carry of this season for St. Louis at age 29, and Michael Turner is 30, and both could easily finish in the top five in the league in rushing this year. McCoy will take the last carry of this contract at age 28.
It's a great deal for the Eagles and LeSean McCoy gets paid. I love it when a plan comes together. I'm sure Matt Forte is thrilled to see McCoy getting paid and is not at all jealous or angry the Bears won't give him a long-term contract.
because a five-year contract for a back at age 25 (which is how old he'd be on opening day 2013) is riskier than a five-year contract for a back at age 24. It's mincing words, yes. But with backs, the longer you wait to pay them, the worse you sleep three and four years down the road.
Understandable, but I still don't know if a 25 year old back on a five year contract is that much of a risk. I think it is important to remember in the NFL there are non-guaranteed contracts, so if a 25 year old back signs a five year deal it can be structured so it won't hurt the team (financially) if his production begins declining prior to year four of the contract. So I wouldn't think a 25 year old back would be a huge risk, as compared to a 26-27 year old back. Those are the risky running back signings in my opinion because year three of their deal encompasses a time when most running backs seem to start a decline.
"Obviously there's an inherent risk in paying any player,'' Roseman said. "But if you're worried, and you're constantly conservative, you won't be able to build the kind of team that you hope can win a championship.''
I can't help but add the Eagles' aggressiveness, and lack of conservativeness, did not necessarily benefit the team last year. The Eagles were very aggressive in making some moves through trade and free agency. While they weren't Redskins-bad moves, these trades/signings didn't work out last year. Howie Roseman signed a 30+ year old injury prone quarterback to a $100 million deal in the last year as well. So I agree with what Roseman is saying, but there is a limit to the aggressiveness a team should show at times.
Even with my minor criticism aside, I think this is a great deal for the Eagles. McCoy will catch his normal 300 screen passes per season and get his typical 10 carries per game, while Mike Vick throws for a 55% completion rate when he is healthy (I'm kidding Eagles fans, please don't attempt to injure me). All will be well this year because the defense will play better and the Eagles will once again be in the playoff hunt.
So what's fair for Drew Brees?
Saint Brees? Brees should be able to name his price and the Saints should pay it. Ok, maybe that's a bit extreme, but the Saints need to re-sign him unless they are really, really high on Chase Daniel. I would say $20 million per year sounds about right...now about the amount of that money that will be guaranteed.
First, other than rookie receiver Nick Toon, no one should really care if Drew Brees is quarterbacking the Saints during Organized Team Activities, or during full-squad minicamps with the Saints...So with opening day 16 weeks from yesterday, I'm not going to be too concerned about Brees missing time until, say, about Aug. 20.
"I don't think it is a big deal if Brees misses any time until the very end of Training Camp. It doesn't matter if he and the Saints haven't come to a deal. That's why I'm bringing it up right now, in the middle of May and doing a very thorough analysis of the situation, because it is so not a big deal that Brees hasn't signed yet."
So let's keep in perspective the fact that Brees and the team are conflicted over the lack of a new contract.
Peter is missing the point I believe. The point isn't whether Brees can run the team effectively once he is signed, the point is the Saints are playing hardball with their best player and they can't come to a contract agreement. It's the perception and lack of resolution in not coming to a contract agreement with their best player that seems to be the issue. Drew Brees and Saints management don't seem to be on the same page when it comes to contract terms. It feels very contentious for some reason.
It's hard to look at this list and divine that Peyton Manning, over the past six years, has been $25.7 million better than Drew Brees, and Tom Brady $14.3 million better.
Don't forget Brees won that Super Bowl for the Saints organization, which made everyone feel 100% better about Hurricane Katrina destroying the city. Brees saved the entire city with that Super Bowl victory, that has to count for something.
The Saints feel they should be credited for taking a medical risk with Brees in 2006. He was coming off serious shoulder reconstruction, and no team was willing to offer him $10 million a year. True.
We all know I think Peter is pretty self-involved at times, is on occasion too tight with NFL players to cover them appropriately, and he tends to complain about menial and trivial things as if he were the one person in the world who gets inconvenienced on a daily basis by the idiocy of other people. I am glad he wrote these two (two sentences and one word) sentences. This revisionist history about how Brees chose the Saints because he wanted to help rebuild the city of New Orleans and how the Dolphins and Chargers were just complete morons for not signing him to a larger deal is crap. The Saints offered the most guaranteed money for the longest amount of contract years and Brees liked Sean Payton, so Brees went to New Orleans. It was pretty much that simple.
But by almost any measure Brees outplayed his contract. He's been the most statistically productive quarterback, and he didn't miss any significant time;
Now the Saints want credit for taking a chance on Brees after he had major shoulder surgery and Brees isn't feeling as much love as he used to feel. I am on Brees' side on this one. The Saints got a hell of a deal for a while. Now is the time to pay up.
So what is Brees worth? He doesn't have the medical red flag of Manning. It's easy to argue he'll be healthier longer than either other player, obviously because he's younger, but also because he hasn't had anything notably wrong with him since the end of the 2005 season.
Ah yes, the kiss of death "He hasn't been injured very much during his career" comment.
Brees is younger, has been more durable, has been more productive ... and the Saints are entering a season unlike any a quarterback has ever had to pilot through, considering the suspensions and unrest in New Orleans. I think the Saints will pay him before the middle of August, and it'll be somewhere around $21 million a year. Looking at the precedents, that's only fair.
I have very little patience for these type of things. We know Brees will re-sign as a Saint. Bree has most of the leverage in this situation. Sure, the Saints could franchise him over these next two seasons and then let him leave as a free agent when he is 35 years old. This won't happen though. The Saints need to re-sign Brees and Brees has the leverage. Why wait until August to come to an agreement with Brees if you are the Saints? Are they playing hardball or thinking they can drive his price down? I don't see it happening. Pay him his $100 million now and get some good press over the summer, rather than let this drag out. We know both sides will come to an agreement. The Saints should not posture or drag this out and just come to an agreement with Brees.
I knew Jim Miller when he worked for three teams in the NFL -- including the Saints as contract negotiator and vice president of administration -- before he changed paths and took the athletic director's job at the University of New Orleans in 2003.
Peter asked this gentleman to provide some insight into the contract negotiations between Brees and the Saints. This is a large section written by someone else, along with another large section of commencement addresses written by other people that was included in this MMQB. I feel like Peter sometimes think he has to make MMQB very long, when I wish he would sometimes make it shorter and more concise. Yes, I realize I write a lot and I am not concise, but I see nothing wrong with a shorter and more concise MMQB.
Sometimes contracts are delivered on a velvet pillow. After I left the Saints, I was chief negotiator for the Chicago Bears, during which time we drafted linebacker Brian Urlacher. When I met Urlacher's agent for the first time, he shocked me by saying the contract must be signed before July 1, a full three weeks before camp opened. His reason? Urlacher was betrothed to a woman the agent did not trust. Under applicable law, any property brought into the marriage by either party before July 1 was not subject to community property laws which were triggered by the matrimonial vows. The agent wanted to protect the signing bonus in the event the marriage failed. Urlacher became the first player in the 2000 NFL draft to sign a contract, and he did eventually divorce his wife.
Sorry for the wall of text, but when some people rag on agents for being money-hungry, thieving jerks who belong at the bottom of the ocean, I like to know stories about how an agent saved his player a great amount of money. Urlacher's agent definitely knew what he was doing and this is a good example of why players need agents.
Six years ago, the Saints took a chance on an injured quarterback and became the beneficiary of what turned out to be a major bargain. Now it's time to consider back pay, rolled into a long-term contract that would give Brees the highest all-time average per year while Condon gives the Saints some relief on when it is earned.
You aren't supposed to negotiate like this and be able to stay a good guy like Brees tries to do, but the Saints should be happy Brees never held out or wanted a new contract during the past six seasons. He has been underpaid for a few years now. If I am Drew Brees, then I am somewhat insulted the Saints have even let it get to this point...unless Brees has been requesting such outrageous numbers the Saints had to turn the requested contract terms down due to the outrageousness of the contract demands. Saint Brees would never do that though, would he?
The symposium will be held at a hotel in Aurora, Ohio, with the NFC rookies meeting from June 24-27, and the AFC rookies gathering from June 27-30. On the last day of each session, rookies will spend a half-day at the Hall of Fame, 45 minutes away, taking a two-hour tour, watching a 20-minute football history film, and listening to a Hall of Famer speak about the lessons of the past.
I've found it amazing when players give you a blank stare when you ask the kind of question about a famous player from the '50s or '60s who any good fan in the street would know -- and the current player doesn't.
Really? Is this amazing? The NFL has a rich history, but a famous player from the 50's or 60's played a solid three or four decades before some of these rookies were even born. Most of the NFL players aren't busy studying the history of the NFL and are too busy playing the game of football as they grow up. It may be kind of odd a player wouldn't know who Bart Starr is, but I am not sure Peter should be amazed by it.
(tries out old man's voice) We all know kids these days don't respect history, so it shouldn't shock anyone these yellow-bellied, war-evading whippersnappers don't know much about the NFL's history. They are too busy listening to their rap music loudly with the windows down.
My brother lives about an hour north of London in the countryside, and he's forever wanted me to come over to see cricket. No time like this quiet NFL offseason to break away. So we set off on the train Saturday morning for Day 3 of the five-day test match between England and the West Indies.
"While on the train, I saw a young couple giggling to each other while pointing at a computer FOR OVER AN HOUR! I can't imagine what was so funny that these young kids were laughing so much. I wish an attendant had asked them to quiet down as their constant laughing was reverberating through the passenger car and it almost broke my concentration as I stared at them."
Then we connected with the Tube on the outskirts of London and got to Lord's, in a nice London Neighborhood, about 10.
"I've never heard so many people speak with a British accent!"
Hours.
Days.
Minutes.
Seconds.
Lots of those in a test match. It starts at 11 in the morning and runs until 1. Players and fans stop for lunch for 40 minutes. The second session is from 1:40 to 3:40. Then they stop for tea. (Or, in my case, beer.) The third session is from 4 to 6. Strange atmosphere in the stadium. At precisely 11, with no warning from the PA announcer or the scoreboard, play began. Just started. Through the day, I kept waiting for music, or loud videos, or something on the scoreboard. Nothing.
But without the PA announcer telling everyone when to cheer how will everyone know when to cheer? Without halftime entertainment, what is there to do to entertain yourself while at the game? With no overdone introductions how will everyone get excited for the sporting event?
Neil bought us tickets to the hospitality tent, where lunch was served. Cerviche of halibut, it was called (cold fish), with seared chicken breast and French wine. Would Jerry Jones serve Cerviche of halibut at Jerryworld?
More importantly, would Cowboys fans eat fish with seared chicken breast and French wine at a football game? Probably not. The atmosphere at a football game is simply different than the atmosphere at a cricket match. The atmosphere at a polo match in the United States is also different from the atmosphere at a football game. Maybe a polo match and a cricket match like the one Peter attended are a better comparison. Peter could probably find a similar experience at a sporting event here in the United States if he really wanted to. Football just has a different atmosphere and I could not imagine eating fish at a football game.
We settled in for the afternoon session. There was an instant replay review of a close play, and Neil extolled the virtues of this replay system versus the NFL's. "Here, if you call for a review, and you're right, you don't get penalized -- you can keep reviewing calls if you're right,'' he said. "In the NFL, if you've exhausted your replay reviews, and you see an obviously wrong call, you can't challenge. That's bollocks.''
Then it was over. No big announcement. We got up, walked out, and I suggested that since Abbey Road was so close, we should find it and walk the most famous crosswalk in the world.
I'm sure no one else had this idea.
Funny thing is, about 40 or 50 people had the same idea at 7:15 on a Saturday evening.
What? You mean 40 or 50 people out of 30,000 people who attended the cricket match chose to to walk the most famous crosswalk in the world? What are the odds of his happening? A million-to-one?
So we waited as Beatles nerd after Beatles nerd did their best John-Ringo-Paul-George imitation. Too young to know what I'm talking about? Google "Abbey Road album cover.''
Talk down to me more, Peter! What is a "road?" Where do I find this "Google" person? Are John-Ringo-Paul-George famous people of some sort?
On Sunday evening, Ken asked me what I wanted to do Monday before he dropped me off at Heathrow around 3. "Let's go to the match,'' I said. Why not? Ten pounds apiece. So we'll go until lunch.
An actually interesting England-related tidbit would have been if Peter told us how much 10 pounds converted to in dollars. That way I could compare the cost of an NFL game to the cost of a cricket match. If I am looking to learn something English/cricket-related that would help me gain a new perspective on the NFL, then information on how much 10 pounds would be in dollars would be nice to know. At least I am reminded what "bollocks" and "Abbey Road" are...I guess.
Highlights from some of the college commencement speeches around the country this month:
As if sitting through your own college's commencement address wasn't boring and tedious enough. Perhaps I didn't have an interesting enough commencement speaker at my graduation.
I think commencement addresses are more interesting to read than to hear. They do make for a good way to kill space in a football column though.
If you liked the passages, great. If not, I understand; this is a football column, not The Chronicle of Higher Education. But this is who I am, which I guess, if you've been reading this column for a while, you understand. Thanks for indulging me.
Fine, I'll let it pass this one time without further criticism. But only because Peter mentioned no team other than the Saints were offering Brees more than $10 million per season earlier in this MMQB.
Biggest reason why the Arizona Cardinals picked wide receiver Michael Floyd in the first round last month? The numbers say it all. If you're going to employ Larry Fitzgerald, and you're going to pay him ($16 million per year) like he's the best receiver in football, you had best not put him out on an island with inaccurate passers.
And here I criticized this pick falsely believing that Michael Floyd was a wide receiver and not a quarterback. I didn't realize the solution to the Cardinals QB issues was to draft another wide receiver.
So now the Cardinals have one great receiver and one potentially really good receiver with an inaccurate passer. Things are much, much better now! Now Kevin Kolb has two competent receivers to miss with wide open passes. Rejoice Cardinals fans!
Not that Floyd is going to fix the accuracy issues. But he should deflect some of the attention from Fitzgerald so the quarterback -- whoever it is -- can have a better chance to play well.
Because at the beginning of the 2012 NFL season opposing defensive coordinators will say, "We need to make sure this rookie wide receiver doesn't beat us, so let's move some coverage off of Larry Fitzgerald." Floyd will have to prove himself before this happens. Not to be to put too fine of a point on it, but the Cardinals' quarterback (whoever it is) is going to have to prove he can be accurate with the football. I just don't see Floyd as a cure for taking coverage off Fitzgerald without Floyd showing he can be a weapon in the offense first. I like Michael Floyd, I still don't know if I like this pick.
In 2010 and 2011, Arizona quarterbacks have been last, collectively, in football, completing 53.3 percent of their throws. Over those two years, Fitzgerald has caught 52.0 percent of the passes thrown his way. If you don't think there's a direct correlation between Fitzgerald's receiving percentage plummeting since Warner left, you haven't been watching the Cardinals play.
Which is why I think the problems aren't with the receiver on the other side of Fitzgerald, but lies with who is throwing Fitzgerald the ball. Seems to me Fitzgerald's success in 2012 depends more on the quarterback throwing him the ball than anything else.
"Said it before and I'll say it again: The Super Bowl in New Orleans this year will be the most awkward SB week in the history of the league''
1. I think there's one thing I don't get about Jonathan Vilma: how he has as his Twitter avatar the Sports Illustrated cover, screaming "Bounty Culture'' with Vilma front and center, very big, jumping out on the cover. If being degraded by being identified with the bounty story is a sue-able offense for Vilma, and if he accuses Roger Goodell of disparaging his character to the point where it's going to be difficult for him to ever find work in or out of the NFL, why does he identify himself with something so reprehensible? How on the one hand can you want something like the SI cover representing you to the Internet world, and on the other hand you sue the man responsible for allegedly making you so infamous?
Quit bringing up logical and relevant points Peter. Don't you see how the NFL has disparaged Jonathan Vilma by suggesting he won't find work after the NFL? A man has got to eat and the millions Vilma has made playing in the NFL just won't support him at the standard of living he wants to keep up. His last contract was only signed for $34 million with only $17 million guaranteed.
4. I think I have only one piece of advice for the Wilfs, in the wake of the news about the new Vikings stadium being approved and on schedule to open in 2016, and as it concerns whether to fork out the extra dough to cap the place with a retractable roof rather than a permanent one: Do it. Bite the bullet. You'll never regret it, especially on beautiful autumn October Sundays when it's cloudless and 48 degrees outside. And one other piece of advice: Make sure Christian Ponder, or whoever the quarterback in 2016 is, isn't one of those indoor-loving guys who will want the roof closed all the time.
Yes, Wilf family. Find out now if Christian Ponder isn't going to be the quarterback in 2016, and if he isn't, then jump in your time machine and find out who will be the quarterback in the year 2016 and ask this person if he prefers the roof be closed all the time or not. All you need is a time machine to jump four years in the future to find out who the Vikings starting quarterback will be and then build the roof on your new stadium based on whether he prefers an open or closed roof.
7. I think the Baltimore Ravens must get driven absolutely nuts by Ed Reed between February and July.
Yes, but he is worth it from August to January.
a. Most depressing in-flight movie in the history of in-flight movies: Young Adult, with Charlize Theron. You're too good to play cheesy and creepy, Charlize -- especially when the script drags and the story's lousy. Sheesh.
Now if Meryl Streep played that role...well let's just say Peter King would recommend an Oscar nomination for her. What a chameleon that Meryl Streep is.
I enjoyed "Young Adult" and I know people who are slightly like Charlize Theron's character who are still living life like they are in high school. I thought the characterization of a person who can't put high school achievements and relationships behind them was fairly spot-on. Maybe the script dragged a little at times, but I don't think the story was lousy. How is Theron too good to play cheesy and creepy? It's called "acting" for a reason.
h. Al Michaels, for all the L.A. Kings pain he's endured over the years, must be happy to be watching the best team in hockey. You didn't know Al was a two-decade Kings' season-ticket holder?
Only Peter King would assume some people don't know what Abbey Road is and then have mock surprise when his readers don't know that Al Michaels is a L.A. Kings fan. This is part of the trend I see in Peter's writing where he will assume his readers have more access to the coaches/players he covers than they actually do. It's much like the comments we will get in MMQB where Peter will discuss a topic and then write, "Ask Joe Philbin if Matt Flynn can play in the NFL," as if his readers have regular conversations with Coach/Player X (in this example Joe Philbin) to ask this question.
k. Imagine the Thunder and the Kings winning the NBA and the NHL, respectively. What odds would you have gotten for that daily winter-pro-sports double last September?
For the Oklahoma City Thunder portion of this double I don't think it would have been speculative to see them win the NBA Title this year. The L.A. King are another matter.
l. Mike Aviles, Jarrod Saltalamacchia. Keepers of the Sox flame.
(Vomits into a trash can)
m. At some point, we're going to have to take the Orioles seriously.
I'm aiming for taking them seriously around mid-August. Once they are in the running to win the AL East at that point, I will take them seriously.
q. Beernerdness: Had the good fortune of drinking Marston's Pedrigree bitter at the cricket match Saturday.
I'm just going to stop here. That beer sounds like dog food. I can't imagine it would be any good.
Before I get on the plane home, a few football notes, a lesson from Rod Smith, some commencement fragments and what the NFL can learn from sports over here.
So the English crowd of 30,000 or so, many of the men in suits and the women in fine dresses and heels, politely clapped when the West Indies batsman, Adrian Barath, scored four runs. Sitting halfway up in the stands, I asked my brother why they were cheering.
"Because it was a good play,'' Ken, eight years my senior, said. "It's about sportsmanship. Barath's a good player. He might be from another country, but you appreciate good play.''
Here we go. It's a lesson in "American fans are too mean to the opposing team" from Peter King. Of course during the Olympics people are generally respectful and will cheer for an accomplishment by the opposing team, but I guess that doesn't count for this discussion. I'd like to focus on the difference between the audience for cricket and the audience for American sports like basketball, baseball or football. I have never attended a cricket match, but I'm assuming from what Peter has told us about the sport and the crowd, it is a much more gentlemanly sport, and the crowd reflects that, as compared to American football, baseball, or basketball. It isn't like an English crowd is a calm crowd that always shows appreciation for the opponent. For example, European soccer has a raucous crowd, much like many American sports have. When it comes to tennis or golf in the United States, a good performance is usually celebrated by the crowd no matter who their favorite golfer is. So short story long, I think the type of sport and not the crowd is the key to appreciating good play from the opposition.What a concept ... appreciating good play from the opposition.
Chipper Jones is being honored in some way or another in nearly every city he plays a road series in during this summer. It's excessive at this point, but this is an example of an American crowd appreciating good play from the opposition. Of course I wouldn't expect Peter to know this since Chipper Jones doesn't play for the Red Sox. Another brief example...Cardinals fans in St. Louis are remarkable for cheering for their team, while also showing respect and admiration for the competition. Maybe it is just a reputation more than reality, but I feel like they appreciate good play from the opposition.
I'll get back to that in this unorthodox column (Monday Morning Wicket Keeper, a few of the Twitter Worldlies suggested I call it today), but let's go football first.
Yeah, let's get this whole "football discussion" out of the way. Monday Morning Quarterback is a weekly column about Peter's life of course, and in no way should be considered to be about the NFL. We are interested in Peter and his life, not any NFL-related news he could give us.
What the LeSean McCoy signing came down to for the Eagles.
Keeping another member of "the Dream Team" of course. Now they just have to sign Mike Vick to a nine-figure deal...wait, the Eagles already did that?
The most amazing thing about McCoy is not how precocious he's been in his first three seasons, averaging 1,414 yards from scrimmage a season. It's that he's 23.
This is very picky, but I don't like it when the word "precocious" is used to refer to a grown man. I know in terms of the actual definition of the word, it can be used in the way Peter is referencing it, but the modern usage is for a child. I feel like we, as a society, should stick to calling children "precocious."
The Eagles signed him to a five-year deal Thursday, and five-year deals for running backs are always dangerous. But Steven Jackson will take his first carry of this season for St. Louis at age 29, and Michael Turner is 30, and both could easily finish in the top five in the league in rushing this year. McCoy will take the last carry of this contract at age 28.
It's a great deal for the Eagles and LeSean McCoy gets paid. I love it when a plan comes together. I'm sure Matt Forte is thrilled to see McCoy getting paid and is not at all jealous or angry the Bears won't give him a long-term contract.
because a five-year contract for a back at age 25 (which is how old he'd be on opening day 2013) is riskier than a five-year contract for a back at age 24. It's mincing words, yes. But with backs, the longer you wait to pay them, the worse you sleep three and four years down the road.
Understandable, but I still don't know if a 25 year old back on a five year contract is that much of a risk. I think it is important to remember in the NFL there are non-guaranteed contracts, so if a 25 year old back signs a five year deal it can be structured so it won't hurt the team (financially) if his production begins declining prior to year four of the contract. So I wouldn't think a 25 year old back would be a huge risk, as compared to a 26-27 year old back. Those are the risky running back signings in my opinion because year three of their deal encompasses a time when most running backs seem to start a decline.
"Obviously there's an inherent risk in paying any player,'' Roseman said. "But if you're worried, and you're constantly conservative, you won't be able to build the kind of team that you hope can win a championship.''
I can't help but add the Eagles' aggressiveness, and lack of conservativeness, did not necessarily benefit the team last year. The Eagles were very aggressive in making some moves through trade and free agency. While they weren't Redskins-bad moves, these trades/signings didn't work out last year. Howie Roseman signed a 30+ year old injury prone quarterback to a $100 million deal in the last year as well. So I agree with what Roseman is saying, but there is a limit to the aggressiveness a team should show at times.
Even with my minor criticism aside, I think this is a great deal for the Eagles. McCoy will catch his normal 300 screen passes per season and get his typical 10 carries per game, while Mike Vick throws for a 55% completion rate when he is healthy (I'm kidding Eagles fans, please don't attempt to injure me). All will be well this year because the defense will play better and the Eagles will once again be in the playoff hunt.
So what's fair for Drew Brees?
Saint Brees? Brees should be able to name his price and the Saints should pay it. Ok, maybe that's a bit extreme, but the Saints need to re-sign him unless they are really, really high on Chase Daniel. I would say $20 million per year sounds about right...now about the amount of that money that will be guaranteed.
First, other than rookie receiver Nick Toon, no one should really care if Drew Brees is quarterbacking the Saints during Organized Team Activities, or during full-squad minicamps with the Saints...So with opening day 16 weeks from yesterday, I'm not going to be too concerned about Brees missing time until, say, about Aug. 20.
"I don't think it is a big deal if Brees misses any time until the very end of Training Camp. It doesn't matter if he and the Saints haven't come to a deal. That's why I'm bringing it up right now, in the middle of May and doing a very thorough analysis of the situation, because it is so not a big deal that Brees hasn't signed yet."
So let's keep in perspective the fact that Brees and the team are conflicted over the lack of a new contract.
Peter is missing the point I believe. The point isn't whether Brees can run the team effectively once he is signed, the point is the Saints are playing hardball with their best player and they can't come to a contract agreement. It's the perception and lack of resolution in not coming to a contract agreement with their best player that seems to be the issue. Drew Brees and Saints management don't seem to be on the same page when it comes to contract terms. It feels very contentious for some reason.
It's hard to look at this list and divine that Peyton Manning, over the past six years, has been $25.7 million better than Drew Brees, and Tom Brady $14.3 million better.
| QB | Super Bowl Wins | Games Missed | Comp. % | Yds/Season | TD-INT | Rating | NFL Earnings |
| Brees | 1 | 1 | .678 | 4,732.3 | 201-93 | 98.5 | $60.0M |
| Brady | 0 | 15 | .656 | 4,388.8 | 177-49 | 103.7 | $74.3M |
| Manning | 1 | 16 | .665 | 4,327.8 | 155-68 | 96.9 | $85.7M |
Don't forget Brees won that Super Bowl for the Saints organization, which made everyone feel 100% better about Hurricane Katrina destroying the city. Brees saved the entire city with that Super Bowl victory, that has to count for something.
The Saints feel they should be credited for taking a medical risk with Brees in 2006. He was coming off serious shoulder reconstruction, and no team was willing to offer him $10 million a year. True.
We all know I think Peter is pretty self-involved at times, is on occasion too tight with NFL players to cover them appropriately, and he tends to complain about menial and trivial things as if he were the one person in the world who gets inconvenienced on a daily basis by the idiocy of other people. I am glad he wrote these two (two sentences and one word) sentences. This revisionist history about how Brees chose the Saints because he wanted to help rebuild the city of New Orleans and how the Dolphins and Chargers were just complete morons for not signing him to a larger deal is crap. The Saints offered the most guaranteed money for the longest amount of contract years and Brees liked Sean Payton, so Brees went to New Orleans. It was pretty much that simple.
But by almost any measure Brees outplayed his contract. He's been the most statistically productive quarterback, and he didn't miss any significant time;
Now the Saints want credit for taking a chance on Brees after he had major shoulder surgery and Brees isn't feeling as much love as he used to feel. I am on Brees' side on this one. The Saints got a hell of a deal for a while. Now is the time to pay up.
So what is Brees worth? He doesn't have the medical red flag of Manning. It's easy to argue he'll be healthier longer than either other player, obviously because he's younger, but also because he hasn't had anything notably wrong with him since the end of the 2005 season.
Ah yes, the kiss of death "He hasn't been injured very much during his career" comment.
Brees is younger, has been more durable, has been more productive ... and the Saints are entering a season unlike any a quarterback has ever had to pilot through, considering the suspensions and unrest in New Orleans. I think the Saints will pay him before the middle of August, and it'll be somewhere around $21 million a year. Looking at the precedents, that's only fair.
I have very little patience for these type of things. We know Brees will re-sign as a Saint. Bree has most of the leverage in this situation. Sure, the Saints could franchise him over these next two seasons and then let him leave as a free agent when he is 35 years old. This won't happen though. The Saints need to re-sign Brees and Brees has the leverage. Why wait until August to come to an agreement with Brees if you are the Saints? Are they playing hardball or thinking they can drive his price down? I don't see it happening. Pay him his $100 million now and get some good press over the summer, rather than let this drag out. We know both sides will come to an agreement. The Saints should not posture or drag this out and just come to an agreement with Brees.
I knew Jim Miller when he worked for three teams in the NFL -- including the Saints as contract negotiator and vice president of administration -- before he changed paths and took the athletic director's job at the University of New Orleans in 2003.
Peter asked this gentleman to provide some insight into the contract negotiations between Brees and the Saints. This is a large section written by someone else, along with another large section of commencement addresses written by other people that was included in this MMQB. I feel like Peter sometimes think he has to make MMQB very long, when I wish he would sometimes make it shorter and more concise. Yes, I realize I write a lot and I am not concise, but I see nothing wrong with a shorter and more concise MMQB.
Sometimes contracts are delivered on a velvet pillow. After I left the Saints, I was chief negotiator for the Chicago Bears, during which time we drafted linebacker Brian Urlacher. When I met Urlacher's agent for the first time, he shocked me by saying the contract must be signed before July 1, a full three weeks before camp opened. His reason? Urlacher was betrothed to a woman the agent did not trust. Under applicable law, any property brought into the marriage by either party before July 1 was not subject to community property laws which were triggered by the matrimonial vows. The agent wanted to protect the signing bonus in the event the marriage failed. Urlacher became the first player in the 2000 NFL draft to sign a contract, and he did eventually divorce his wife.
Sorry for the wall of text, but when some people rag on agents for being money-hungry, thieving jerks who belong at the bottom of the ocean, I like to know stories about how an agent saved his player a great amount of money. Urlacher's agent definitely knew what he was doing and this is a good example of why players need agents.
Six years ago, the Saints took a chance on an injured quarterback and became the beneficiary of what turned out to be a major bargain. Now it's time to consider back pay, rolled into a long-term contract that would give Brees the highest all-time average per year while Condon gives the Saints some relief on when it is earned.
You aren't supposed to negotiate like this and be able to stay a good guy like Brees tries to do, but the Saints should be happy Brees never held out or wanted a new contract during the past six seasons. He has been underpaid for a few years now. If I am Drew Brees, then I am somewhat insulted the Saints have even let it get to this point...unless Brees has been requesting such outrageous numbers the Saints had to turn the requested contract terms down due to the outrageousness of the contract demands. Saint Brees would never do that though, would he?
The symposium will be held at a hotel in Aurora, Ohio, with the NFC rookies meeting from June 24-27, and the AFC rookies gathering from June 27-30. On the last day of each session, rookies will spend a half-day at the Hall of Fame, 45 minutes away, taking a two-hour tour, watching a 20-minute football history film, and listening to a Hall of Famer speak about the lessons of the past.
I've found it amazing when players give you a blank stare when you ask the kind of question about a famous player from the '50s or '60s who any good fan in the street would know -- and the current player doesn't.
Really? Is this amazing? The NFL has a rich history, but a famous player from the 50's or 60's played a solid three or four decades before some of these rookies were even born. Most of the NFL players aren't busy studying the history of the NFL and are too busy playing the game of football as they grow up. It may be kind of odd a player wouldn't know who Bart Starr is, but I am not sure Peter should be amazed by it.
(tries out old man's voice) We all know kids these days don't respect history, so it shouldn't shock anyone these yellow-bellied, war-evading whippersnappers don't know much about the NFL's history. They are too busy listening to their rap music loudly with the windows down.
My brother lives about an hour north of London in the countryside, and he's forever wanted me to come over to see cricket. No time like this quiet NFL offseason to break away. So we set off on the train Saturday morning for Day 3 of the five-day test match between England and the West Indies.
"While on the train, I saw a young couple giggling to each other while pointing at a computer FOR OVER AN HOUR! I can't imagine what was so funny that these young kids were laughing so much. I wish an attendant had asked them to quiet down as their constant laughing was reverberating through the passenger car and it almost broke my concentration as I stared at them."
Then we connected with the Tube on the outskirts of London and got to Lord's, in a nice London Neighborhood, about 10.
"I've never heard so many people speak with a British accent!"
Hours.
Days.
Minutes.
Seconds.
Lots of those in a test match. It starts at 11 in the morning and runs until 1. Players and fans stop for lunch for 40 minutes. The second session is from 1:40 to 3:40. Then they stop for tea. (Or, in my case, beer.) The third session is from 4 to 6. Strange atmosphere in the stadium. At precisely 11, with no warning from the PA announcer or the scoreboard, play began. Just started. Through the day, I kept waiting for music, or loud videos, or something on the scoreboard. Nothing.
But without the PA announcer telling everyone when to cheer how will everyone know when to cheer? Without halftime entertainment, what is there to do to entertain yourself while at the game? With no overdone introductions how will everyone get excited for the sporting event?
Neil bought us tickets to the hospitality tent, where lunch was served. Cerviche of halibut, it was called (cold fish), with seared chicken breast and French wine. Would Jerry Jones serve Cerviche of halibut at Jerryworld?
More importantly, would Cowboys fans eat fish with seared chicken breast and French wine at a football game? Probably not. The atmosphere at a football game is simply different than the atmosphere at a cricket match. The atmosphere at a polo match in the United States is also different from the atmosphere at a football game. Maybe a polo match and a cricket match like the one Peter attended are a better comparison. Peter could probably find a similar experience at a sporting event here in the United States if he really wanted to. Football just has a different atmosphere and I could not imagine eating fish at a football game.
We settled in for the afternoon session. There was an instant replay review of a close play, and Neil extolled the virtues of this replay system versus the NFL's. "Here, if you call for a review, and you're right, you don't get penalized -- you can keep reviewing calls if you're right,'' he said. "In the NFL, if you've exhausted your replay reviews, and you see an obviously wrong call, you can't challenge. That's bollocks.''
Bad, he meant.
Thanks for clarifying that Peter. I am an idiot and have no clue about how other countries live or talk. When someone says they are going to the "loo," I just always assume they are going to St. Louis...it has always been weird to me when that person who goes to the "loo" returns within the next five minutes.Then it was over. No big announcement. We got up, walked out, and I suggested that since Abbey Road was so close, we should find it and walk the most famous crosswalk in the world.
I'm sure no one else had this idea.
Funny thing is, about 40 or 50 people had the same idea at 7:15 on a Saturday evening.
What? You mean 40 or 50 people out of 30,000 people who attended the cricket match chose to to walk the most famous crosswalk in the world? What are the odds of his happening? A million-to-one?
So we waited as Beatles nerd after Beatles nerd did their best John-Ringo-Paul-George imitation. Too young to know what I'm talking about? Google "Abbey Road album cover.''
Talk down to me more, Peter! What is a "road?" Where do I find this "Google" person? Are John-Ringo-Paul-George famous people of some sort?
On Sunday evening, Ken asked me what I wanted to do Monday before he dropped me off at Heathrow around 3. "Let's go to the match,'' I said. Why not? Ten pounds apiece. So we'll go until lunch.
An actually interesting England-related tidbit would have been if Peter told us how much 10 pounds converted to in dollars. That way I could compare the cost of an NFL game to the cost of a cricket match. If I am looking to learn something English/cricket-related that would help me gain a new perspective on the NFL, then information on how much 10 pounds would be in dollars would be nice to know. At least I am reminded what "bollocks" and "Abbey Road" are...I guess.
Highlights from some of the college commencement speeches around the country this month:
As if sitting through your own college's commencement address wasn't boring and tedious enough. Perhaps I didn't have an interesting enough commencement speaker at my graduation.
I think commencement addresses are more interesting to read than to hear. They do make for a good way to kill space in a football column though.
If you liked the passages, great. If not, I understand; this is a football column, not The Chronicle of Higher Education. But this is who I am, which I guess, if you've been reading this column for a while, you understand. Thanks for indulging me.
Fine, I'll let it pass this one time without further criticism. But only because Peter mentioned no team other than the Saints were offering Brees more than $10 million per season earlier in this MMQB.
Biggest reason why the Arizona Cardinals picked wide receiver Michael Floyd in the first round last month? The numbers say it all. If you're going to employ Larry Fitzgerald, and you're going to pay him ($16 million per year) like he's the best receiver in football, you had best not put him out on an island with inaccurate passers.
And here I criticized this pick falsely believing that Michael Floyd was a wide receiver and not a quarterback. I didn't realize the solution to the Cardinals QB issues was to draft another wide receiver.
So now the Cardinals have one great receiver and one potentially really good receiver with an inaccurate passer. Things are much, much better now! Now Kevin Kolb has two competent receivers to miss with wide open passes. Rejoice Cardinals fans!
Not that Floyd is going to fix the accuracy issues. But he should deflect some of the attention from Fitzgerald so the quarterback -- whoever it is -- can have a better chance to play well.
Because at the beginning of the 2012 NFL season opposing defensive coordinators will say, "We need to make sure this rookie wide receiver doesn't beat us, so let's move some coverage off of Larry Fitzgerald." Floyd will have to prove himself before this happens. Not to be to put too fine of a point on it, but the Cardinals' quarterback (whoever it is) is going to have to prove he can be accurate with the football. I just don't see Floyd as a cure for taking coverage off Fitzgerald without Floyd showing he can be a weapon in the offense first. I like Michael Floyd, I still don't know if I like this pick.
In 2010 and 2011, Arizona quarterbacks have been last, collectively, in football, completing 53.3 percent of their throws. Over those two years, Fitzgerald has caught 52.0 percent of the passes thrown his way. If you don't think there's a direct correlation between Fitzgerald's receiving percentage plummeting since Warner left, you haven't been watching the Cardinals play.
Which is why I think the problems aren't with the receiver on the other side of Fitzgerald, but lies with who is throwing Fitzgerald the ball. Seems to me Fitzgerald's success in 2012 depends more on the quarterback throwing him the ball than anything else.
"Said it before and I'll say it again: The Super Bowl in New Orleans this year will be the most awkward SB week in the history of the league''
-- @wingoz, ESPN host Trey Wingo.
Agreed, Trey. Roger Goodell should bring his earplugs.
Roger Goodell may need to bring a bodyguard with him everywhere he goes during that week. The way he screwed the Saints team over for daring to punish them for breaking NFL rules, what fan base wouldn't be mad at the commissioner for enforcing NFL rules and handing down punishments when that team breaks those rules?1. I think there's one thing I don't get about Jonathan Vilma: how he has as his Twitter avatar the Sports Illustrated cover, screaming "Bounty Culture'' with Vilma front and center, very big, jumping out on the cover. If being degraded by being identified with the bounty story is a sue-able offense for Vilma, and if he accuses Roger Goodell of disparaging his character to the point where it's going to be difficult for him to ever find work in or out of the NFL, why does he identify himself with something so reprehensible? How on the one hand can you want something like the SI cover representing you to the Internet world, and on the other hand you sue the man responsible for allegedly making you so infamous?
Quit bringing up logical and relevant points Peter. Don't you see how the NFL has disparaged Jonathan Vilma by suggesting he won't find work after the NFL? A man has got to eat and the millions Vilma has made playing in the NFL just won't support him at the standard of living he wants to keep up. His last contract was only signed for $34 million with only $17 million guaranteed.
4. I think I have only one piece of advice for the Wilfs, in the wake of the news about the new Vikings stadium being approved and on schedule to open in 2016, and as it concerns whether to fork out the extra dough to cap the place with a retractable roof rather than a permanent one: Do it. Bite the bullet. You'll never regret it, especially on beautiful autumn October Sundays when it's cloudless and 48 degrees outside. And one other piece of advice: Make sure Christian Ponder, or whoever the quarterback in 2016 is, isn't one of those indoor-loving guys who will want the roof closed all the time.
Yes, Wilf family. Find out now if Christian Ponder isn't going to be the quarterback in 2016, and if he isn't, then jump in your time machine and find out who will be the quarterback in the year 2016 and ask this person if he prefers the roof be closed all the time or not. All you need is a time machine to jump four years in the future to find out who the Vikings starting quarterback will be and then build the roof on your new stadium based on whether he prefers an open or closed roof.
7. I think the Baltimore Ravens must get driven absolutely nuts by Ed Reed between February and July.
Yes, but he is worth it from August to January.
a. Most depressing in-flight movie in the history of in-flight movies: Young Adult, with Charlize Theron. You're too good to play cheesy and creepy, Charlize -- especially when the script drags and the story's lousy. Sheesh.
Now if Meryl Streep played that role...well let's just say Peter King would recommend an Oscar nomination for her. What a chameleon that Meryl Streep is.
I enjoyed "Young Adult" and I know people who are slightly like Charlize Theron's character who are still living life like they are in high school. I thought the characterization of a person who can't put high school achievements and relationships behind them was fairly spot-on. Maybe the script dragged a little at times, but I don't think the story was lousy. How is Theron too good to play cheesy and creepy? It's called "acting" for a reason.
h. Al Michaels, for all the L.A. Kings pain he's endured over the years, must be happy to be watching the best team in hockey. You didn't know Al was a two-decade Kings' season-ticket holder?
Only Peter King would assume some people don't know what Abbey Road is and then have mock surprise when his readers don't know that Al Michaels is a L.A. Kings fan. This is part of the trend I see in Peter's writing where he will assume his readers have more access to the coaches/players he covers than they actually do. It's much like the comments we will get in MMQB where Peter will discuss a topic and then write, "Ask Joe Philbin if Matt Flynn can play in the NFL," as if his readers have regular conversations with Coach/Player X (in this example Joe Philbin) to ask this question.
k. Imagine the Thunder and the Kings winning the NBA and the NHL, respectively. What odds would you have gotten for that daily winter-pro-sports double last September?
For the Oklahoma City Thunder portion of this double I don't think it would have been speculative to see them win the NBA Title this year. The L.A. King are another matter.
l. Mike Aviles, Jarrod Saltalamacchia. Keepers of the Sox flame.
(Vomits into a trash can)
m. At some point, we're going to have to take the Orioles seriously.
I'm aiming for taking them seriously around mid-August. Once they are in the running to win the AL East at that point, I will take them seriously.
q. Beernerdness: Had the good fortune of drinking Marston's Pedrigree bitter at the cricket match Saturday.
I'm just going to stop here. That beer sounds like dog food. I can't imagine it would be any good.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)