7 comments MMQB Review: Peter's Super Bowl Pick Edition

Peter King made some observations from all 16 of the useless preseason games in last week's MMQB. He also suggested Judge Berman decide to end all of this nonsense about the Patriots deflating footballs in order to kick the can down the road and make this nonsense last longer. Peter wanted the judge to wait until after the 2015 season to rule so that way there would be a whole other five months of measuring the PSI of footballs in cold weather. Fortunately, Judge Berman did not take Peter's advice. This week, Peter talks about Aaron Rodgers and how perfect he is, makes his Super Bowl prediction, and is the 10,000th media member to recommend "Do Your Job." I think Peter wins an award or something for being the 10,000th media member to recommend this documentary, doesn't he?

Factoid I Learned this Summer That I Have Been Dying To Share With You: 

Your daughter is having another big gay wedding and you want everyone to be open-minded about it while specifically referring to it as a "gay wedding" on Twitter and not just a "wedding" thereby showing you subconsciously differentiate between the two type of weddings?

This is the 10th season Mike McCarthy has coached the Packers, and the 10th season Aaron Rodgers has played for Mike McCarthy. In all that time, from January 2006 to this weekend, Rodgers has never been fined by the team. He has never been late to a meeting, a practice, a game, an off-season workout. He has never missed any of those scheduled events without permission. He has never violated curfew either in training camp or the night before any of the 197 preseason, regular-season or postseason games since McCarthy took over. He has never mouthed off to anyone, or violated any team rule to the extent that he had to be fined. 

I find it hard to believe Rodgers has never mouthed off to anyone. I think his mouthing off is simply being forgotten. A lot of people aren't late to work, don't get suspended, and don't violate any rules while at work. Congrats to Aaron Rodgers and this is such a worthy note to lead off the column with. Very important information to know.

And of course other sportswriters on Twitter thought this factoid was brilliant and congratulated Peter as if he had found the Holy Grail and then managed to sell it off to an alien race which allowed him to cure cancer. And yes, a "factoid" is still a statement of questionable factual basis, so maybe Peter is lying, or he still insists on not using a dictionary before using big words.

“That is true,” Rodgers told me. “Now, in my rookie year, 2005, I did get fined once.

So as long as the time Aaron Rodgers DID get fined isn't counted, then this factoid is true. A lot of facts can be true if a person works around all the times that fact wasn't true.

I was five minutes late to a meeting. I was speeding down [Wisconsin route] 41, a little late, and I said, ‘I can either get a ticket here and be late, or I can drive normal and be late.’ I decided to be six minutes late and take the fine.” 

Aaron Rodgers favors taking his medicine and staying within the law over violating the law and doing what's best for him. He's the hero we need.

There’s no really good reason to write that this morning.

Finally, we can agree. Football starts in less than a week and Peter is starting off his column with factoids about Aaron Rodgers.

I’m picking a Green Bay-Baltimore Super Bowl. Two teams that blew golden chances to meet in the Super Bowl last year, finally keeping the appointment a year later. (NFC title game last January, five minutes left: Green Bay 19, Seattle 7. AFC divisional game last January, 23 minutes left: Baltimore 28, New England 14.) 

There's the whole "Well yeah, Dez Bryant caught that pass and so the Packers may not have even advanced to the NFC title game if that rule made any sense and the Cowboys had managed to punch the ball in from the two-yard line with the best running game in the NFL" argument, but I guess that should be ignored in keeping with the storyline that Peter is crafting right now.

To make that pick, I have to get over a lot of things. For Green Bay, the Jordy Nelson injury is the biggest thing—the most dangerous weapon for Rodgers on the team that scored the most points (486) in football last year...But I recall Davante Adams being in the right place at the right time for Green Bay to beat Miami last year.

Peter was worried about losing Nelson, but then he realized one time last year Davante Adams caught an important pass and this helped Peter realize Nelson is probably useless anyway.

I like the defense well enough too, despite the loss to free agency of solid corners Tramon Williams and Davon House. Maybe that’s me trying to talk my way into picking Green Bay, but I remember in the NFC title game last year what I saw in the first 55 minutes: 12 Seattle drives, seven points, 187 yards, four interceptions of Russell Wilson.

Yes, that game was against Seattle, the renowned offensively explosive team who can attack you from anywhere in their high octane passing game. Peter is worried about the Packers losing two solid corners, but points out the Packers did well against a team that isn't known for having a great passing attack (WITH those two corners on the roster at the time) and it made him feel better about the Packers secondary. Ignore the last five minutes of the game because the first part of MMQB is all about making statements and leaving information out that disputes those statements.

Baltimore? You’ll be surprised at the Ravens’ biggest challenge.

Let me guess, you think they are going to trade Joe Flacco midseason because Ozzie Newsome said, "I can see a trade or two happening this year" as an offhand comment to a reporter?

So what is the Ravens' biggest challenge? Their ONE biggest challenge?

Two, actually: 

YOU GOT ME AGAIN, PETER! YOU SAID "CHALLENGE" LIKE THERE WAS ONE, THEN SURPRISED ME WITH TWO! TWO SURPRISES AROUND YOUR PICK OF THE RAVENS? I'M STANDING UP APPLAUDING YOU RIGHT NOW, BUT IF I WEREN'T, I WOULD BE ON THE EDGE OF MY SEAT WANTING TO KNOW WHAT THE SURPRISE IS!

1. The Bengals. You’d think the Ravens are significantly better over the past few years, right? Well, in the post-season, yes. But Cincinnati and Baltimore have 40 regular-season wins apiece in the past four years. The Bengals beat the Ravens in the AFC North standings in 2013 and ’14. In their past five meetings, the Bengals are 4-1 against the Ravens and have allowed Baltimore just 18.8 points a game. 

And so because the Bengals have been good over the past four years and the Ravens have to play the Bengals two total times this year, this means that the Bengals will be good this year as well?

But no, Peter King is doing the whole "Two topics that are really one topic but inexplicably separated" thing he does in the "Things I Think I Think" section. Really, there is one challenge for the Ravens.

2. Baltimore has to earn home-field in the playoffs. I know: Every team wants to be at home in the playoffs, but for the Ravens the home-field edge has been huge in the John Harbaugh era. Since Harbaugh took over in 2008, Baltimore is 45-11 at home and 27-29 on the road in the regular season.

So the challenge for the Ravens isn't the Bengals, but to win their division and get homefield advantage. Let's not overcomplicate it. Also, home-field edge has been huge for the Ravens during the John Harbaugh era as long as the fact the Ravens won a Super Bowl by winning two road games or that the Ravens are 7-5 on the road in the playoffs under Harbaugh gets ignored.

The Ravens have played 15 postseason games since 2008 … only two at home. Twelve on the road, and one (the Super Bowl, against San Francisco) at a neutral site. 

But it’s worn on Baltimore. Like last year. Even with a World League secondary, the Ravens held two 14-point leads at New England in the divisional round and couldn’t hang on. Imagine if the game had been in Baltimore, where the Ravens have won a Patriot-like 81 percent of their home games since 2008. 

Imagine if that game had been played on an aircraft carrier in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean. How would that have affected the outcome? What about if this game was played on a field made of pillows, how could that have had an effect on the score? 

I see the Ravens winning the North

Kings of the North! Flying their family banner! Fuck the Starks!

If they win the North, that’s one home playoff game at least. If they win 12 games, that should be enough for two. What they really need, though, is for the rest of the conference to get as good as the North has been in recent years, so the road to Santa Clara won’t be all on the road.

All teams want home playoff games, but I don't see why the need for the Ravens to have one is so great. They have proven they can win games on the road in the playoffs.

Regarding the other contenders:
 
New England. No repeat champions in the past 10 Super Bowls; I’m not big at all on picking repeat champs. Then there’s the weak secondary (minus Darrelle Revis and Super Bowl unsung hero Brandon Browner), and the Ravens-like lack of depth at receiver.

If only the Patriots had a dynamic tight end who is essentially uncoverable. Alas, they do not and we must all move on.

Seattle. I checked in with a Seahawk source Sunday night, and there’s scant optimism that strong safety Kam Chancellor—vital on the field, of course, but in the locker room too—will be in St. Louis for the opener in six days. Plus, free safety Earl Thomas, rehabbing from a torn labrum in his left shoulder, is likely to play next week but not certain. So, Seattle could face a matchup nightmare in St. Louis (last three years: Rams two wins, Seattle one in St. Louis)

A matchup nightmare! A total nightmare facing that up-and-coming Los Angeles Rams team! They are so formidable and scary. The Rams have won two games at home against the Seahawks over the last three years. If that's not having a team's number then I don't know what a small sample size is.

The Seahawks should score more,

Except for Russell Wilson, who isn't scoring at all apparently.

Indianapolis. When we last left the Colts, they were getting steamrolled on the ground for the third time in their past 20 games by the Patriots. Arthur Jones, key run-stopper up front, has been lost for the year, and they haven’t made any significant adds to the defensive front, save Kandall Langford, who’s no Haloti Ngata. If Andrew Luck can score 40 points a Sunday, I like the Colts to go far. If not, they’ll win the AFC South and be frustrated again in late January.

The Colts drafted Phillip Dorsett. Imagine how awesome Andrew Luck's MVP numbers are going to look after the season is over. Sure, Ryan Grigson could have improved the defense and just didn't like the guys available in the first round, but he's also not one to trade a first round pick for an active player in an effort to improve his team. Not at all.

Philadelphia/Dallas. Flip a coin.

You go flip a coin.

I like the Eagles better, by a bit, mostly because the Cowboys lost their best defensive back (Orlando Scandrick) for the year this preseason, and because Philadelphia scored faster this preseason than the Kardashians printed money. But there’s no insurance for Sam Bradford staying upright for the season; if he does, the Eagles are as good as anyone in the NFC, and maybe better.

It's always dumb to assume Sam Bradford is going to be healthy all year long. It's always dumb, but Peter and I do agree what could happen IF Bradford is healthy all year. And yes, I really regret counting on Bradford to be healthy in my predictions because I know it's not happening.

My playoff jumpers? (The rising teams in each conference, I mean).

Thanks for explaining, Peter. Your readers are mental midgets who didn't understand what you were saying and desperately needed you to clarify. Playoff jumpers? How can a franchise literally jump the playoffs? Without the explanation, that's how I would feel.

I think Peter lacks a certain amount of intellectual respect for his readers at times. His need to explain things can be a bit condescending. This from a guy who can't use the definition of "precocious" and "factoid" correctly, but it doesn't stop him from using those words as much as possible.

Minnesota (7-9 last year) and Miami (8-8 last year).

(throws up) It appears I agree with Peter on something else.

Regarding Miami: I haven’t seen a team in recent years with the schedule advantage the Dolphins have in the first two months. Their opening seven weeks: at Kirk Cousins (Washington), at Blake Bortles (Jacksonville), versus Tyrod Taylor (Buffalo) at home, versus Ryan Fitzpatrick (Jets) in London, bye, at Marcus Mariota (Tennessee), versus Brian Hoyer (Houston) at home.

And since when have any NFL teams been bad one season and then improved the very next season? Never, so obviously the Dolphins schedule is very easy and the great Ryan Tannehill certainly won't have to play against any good defenses like the Bills, Jets and Texans have over this span. Remember, football is only a game of matchups between each team's quarterback.

Of course, they’ve got the Patriots twice, the Eagles, Cowboys and Chargers in the last 10 games, 

So it leads to something like 8-8, assuming the Dolphins lose to a team they should not lose to and then beat a team they should beat? Great, glad we talked about this.

My picks, division by division:

AFC: New England, Baltimore, Indianapolis, Kansas City.

Wild Cards: Denver, Miami.

NFC: Philadelphia, Green Bay, Atlanta, Seattle.

Wild Cards: Arizona, Dallas.

Not criticizing, just pointing out this is basically the same teams that made the playoffs last year except Atlanta will win the NFC South, Peter thinks the team that stands in the way of the Ravens making the playoffs don't even make the postseason (the Bengals), and he believes in Andy Reid so much he thinks the Chiefs win the AFC West. So there is 25% turnover among the 12 playoff teams. 

Lots of leftovers after the embarrassing but not shocking (except to the NFL) total defeat in U.S. District Court on Thursday:

Clearly, some around the league don’t think Ted Wells, Jeff Pash and Goodell have the goods on Brady. They are right: The league doesn’t have the goods. There’s no proof that Brady told anyone to take air out of the footballs.

I'm just glad we got to the bottom of whether air in the amount of a few tenths of a PSI were taken out of the football or not and who knew what and when they knew it. With offensive line coaches hitting their loved ones and all that boring football stuff to focus on, I like to see important things like whether footballs used in a game back in January where the outcome wasn't in doubt had reduced air pressure in them.

There are between two and four owners, a very small cabal, down on Goodell right now to the point that they would consider joining a movement to replace him. That’s not many, especially when you consider that Goodell is on the losing streak of all commissioner losing streaks, and when you consider that 24 votes would be required to replace Goodell. Understand that many of the leading owners in the league consider that Goodell is doing their bidding, fighting for what he believes is the right thing, and also that he’s taking hits for them on fronts like domestic violence.

I always laugh when the idea of the owners replacing Goodell comes up. I think they probably should, but why do that when he's taking all the heat and making them look good? Who hates Jerry Richardson because Greg Hardy hit a woman? Nobody. Who got mad at Steve Bisciotti because the Ravens handled the Ray Rice situation poorly? A few people did and then forgot about it once Roger Goodell started fumbling around when attempting to punish Rice. Goodell is paid to be the bad guy so the owners don't have to be.

It could be that the union, smelling blood in the water, will stand firm and not give up anything in bargaining with the NFL, because the players know how weakened the NFL is right now. I doubt that will be enough for the league to just say, We’ll hand you neutral arbitration. But both sides know Goodell needs to fork over the appeal process for Brady-type cases. This solution seems logical:

Almost as logical as Peter's solution to punish Tom Brady, which was to make this whole drama get drawn out longer? 

The league and players agree to a panel of three arbitrators; the arbitrators would be mutually agreed upon by the league and the union. Each time there’s an appeal of a commissioner discipline case, one of the three arbitrators would be picked randomly to hear the appeal.

So all the league and players would have to do is agree on three arbitrators? Wow, that seems easy enough considering the union doesn't trust the league and the league has no respect for the union. 

In exchange, the CBA, set to expire following the 2020 season, will be extended one season, and would expire after the 2021 season. Now, the league will howl at this, saying that’s not enough of a trade with the players to give up such a valuable chip. But I would maintain this: The chip has become a poisonous one. The chip is not nearly as valuable as it once was. It’s now worth 20 cents on the dollar. Goodell has to make a save-face deal with the players, or risk the waterfall of negative press and public opinion washing over him and the league.

He doesn't care, Peter. Roger Goodell doesn't care about saving face with the players. He doesn't care about the waterfall of negative press and public opinion because everybody still watches the NFL games, buys the merchandise and the stadiums will undoubtedly be full on Thursday nights, all day Sunday and Monday nights. This makes the owners money, they are happy, which means they are happy with Goodell, so Goodell is happy and has done his job. Roger Goodell only cares about saving face or public opinion when it comes to hurting the NFL's bottom line. Otherwise, it's all noise to him as long as the money keeps rolling in.

I’ve screened NFL Network’s “Do Your Job: Bill Belichick and the 2014 New England Patriots,” an hour-long documentary that airs Wednesday on NFL Network at 8 p.m. ET. It might be the best example I’ve ever watched of how Belichick works—how he prepares players, how he prepares coaches, how he gets coaches ready to impart what players need to know to win, how he motivates players (thought there’s not a lot of that here), how he uses mysterious director of football research Ernie Adams (who is interviewed for the documentary), and how he uses so much minutiae of football knowledge to prepare for games.

I find it interesting how there is a constant presumption of secretiveness surrounding Belichick and the Patriots. To an extent that is true on the day-to-day aspects of knowing what goes in with the Patriots, but this is the second documentary in the last couple of years about the Patriots and/or Belichick where the inner workings of his team and decision-making process are examined on camera. For a guy who is really secretive and there isn't much known about how the Patriots go about their business, the public sure knows a hell of a lot more about how he runs his team than they know about how Pete Carroll runs the inner workings of his team. So they are secretive, but I think it's at the point we know more about the Patriots than many other NFL teams. 

It’ll be easy for non-Patriot fans to sneer at it and say, Enough of the bleepin’ Patriots overload! But this is such a good show about football, and about the inner game of football, that if you’re a football fan you’ll be doing yourself a disservice by not at least setting the DVR to record this show.

It's still about the Patriots though. I would watch it, but if someone is tired of the Patriots, then an entire show about the team and how they just won the Super Bowl probably isn't something that sounds enticing to watch.

“Maybe the one word that isn’t in that sentence,” said Belichick in the doc, “that’s implied but not stated, is ‘Do your job well.’ Take care of the one or two three things that we’ve emphasized all week, and we’ll be okay.”

I recognize that no other NFL head coaches have had the success that Bill Belichick has had, but what is Mike McCarthy's mantra? What do we know about McCarthy and how he runs his Packers team? Not that Belichick isn't secretive, but it's growing harder for me to see this types of documentaries being introduced as if they are a brief glimpse into the world of Belichick that few others will ever see. These documentaries are a glimpse few others will see into every head coach's team, so while Belichick is secretive, there is a lot more that is known about his overall philosophies then there is known about the overall philosophies of pretty much any other NFL head coach.

Offensive coordinator Josh McDaniels confirmed the coaches showed the offense a clip of Alabama throwing the unbalanced offensive-line formation against LSU before the divisional game against Baltimore, and then explained why the play was used when it was—in the third quarter, down 14, with the season on the line. New England ran it twice and Tom Brady completed both passes on a scoring drive. ”We waited 'til the second half, purposefully so they didn’t have an opportunity at halftime to talk about it,” said McDaniels.

That is cheating to run a play that defense doesn't have to time to adjust to after they have seen it. Pure cheating. It's classless to fool the opposing team this way. 

Belichick explains why he didn’t call a timeout on the Seahawks’ fateful last drive, which would have opened him to ridicule had Seattle scored and left New England to go the length of the field in 17 or 20 seconds to have a chance had Seattle scored on the play. Basically, it’s like what we all thought: Belichick saw confusion and players hurrying around on the Seattle sideline, so he wanted to take advantage of the confusion (or so it seemed) and make them snap without being fully prepared for the play.

Little did Belichick know that Russell Wilson didn't need to be prepared for the play and the confusion didn't hurt, because God was speaking to him right at that moment. Probably talking to Wilson about the benefits of Recovery Water. 

Really good show.

I'm shocked Peter liked it. Shocked. 

“Brady’s free!”

—A passenger in the back of a Boston-to-Denver Southwest Airline flight on Thursday, shortly after the plane landed late in the morning and when passengers switched on the phones, got wifi, and learned the news of Judge Richard Berman vacating the suspension of Tom Brady, according to passenger Abby Chin of Comcast Sports Net-New England

I didn't have a dog in this fight, but the whole "Brady is free" exclamations were a little annoying to me. He's not in jail. He was initially suspended from playing a sporting event, a game, for four games. It was probably an overreach by the commissioner, but Brady wasn't jailed while on a humanitarian mission in a foreign country. He was accused of conspiring to deflate footballs. He wasn't ever not free. If he wasn't playing football for four games, then he would have been chilling at home with his kids and wife. Let's get a little perspective. 

“Now we don’t have to play what’s-his-name.”

—A kid on the Boston-to-Denver flight, once he learned Brady, and not Jimmy Garappolo, would be playing quarterback for the Patriots early in the season.

Ten years from now this kid will be in a bar talking about how he knew Jimmy G. was the right QB for the Patriots even at the age of 13 when the Pats drafted him.

Snaps played in 13 combined preseason games by three 2015 Most Valuable Player candidates:

Adrian Peterson (five games): 0.

J.J. Watt (four games): 0.

Rob Gronkowski (four games): 0.

Can we at some point, please, have a discussion about cutting the preseason from four to two games?

Hold on for a second. You made the NFL owners lose count again.  

Sure, we can have the discussion about cutting down the preseason. Don't you think a conversation about gun control is probably more important though? So the owners will let Congress figure that one out and then we can talk about cutting the preseason from four to two games. The owners want to have the gun control conversation first. 

The final weekend of the regular season includes New England playing at Miami on Jan. 3, 2016, at 1 p.m. In the last two New England games at Miami, it has been 84 degrees at kickoff (in December 2013) and 89 degrees at kickoff (in September 2014). The Patriots have lost both games—24-20 two years ago, 33-20 last year.

Might be a good idea for the Patriots to pray for a New Year’s cold snap in south Florida, or to think about practicing in steamy conditions, somewhere, before the game this year.

If really cold conditions make the PSI in a ball decrease, then does playing in a hot climate cause the PSI in the football to increase? If so, tell Ted Wells! Here is further proof of the Patriots cheating. They can't win football games in hot climates. 

Mr. Starwood Preferred Member Travel Note of the Week

Another reason Amtrak should be the mode of transportation for more people: timeliness.

I boarded Amtrak 2158, an Acela train from New York to Boston, at about 11:55 a.m. Wednesday. Train slated to depart at 12:03 p.m. I had my laptop open, with the digital clock up. At 12:03:10, the doors to the train closed. At 12:03:33, the train started moving. We were due at Boston’s Back Bay station at 3:36 p.m. Arrival time: 3:29. My experience is that’s pretty common on the Acela (not so much on the regional trains).

Two weeks from now:

"Here is my major complaint about the Acela. It's normally on time, but there were two kids on the train who insisted on playing games on their phone. At least I assume they were games and they had the volume up at a high level where I could barely hear the important conversation I was having on my phone, so I of course had to talk louder. Everyone was annoyed at the amount of noise those two kids were making playing their game, though I honestly couldn't hear what they were saying because I was having to talk so loud to hear my conversation. Also, if a train is supposed to be in Boston at 2:30pm..."

Ten Things I Think I Think

2. I think these were the stories of cutdown weekend in the NFL:

a. Tim Tebow is not one of 1,696 active players in the National Football League. The four NFL people to get rid of Tebow—John Elway, Rex Ryan (and, in part, Mike Tannenbaum), Bill Belichick, Chip Kelly—should give you an idea of the odds he faces in returning to the NFL.

This doesn't include a successful head coach like John Fox who was part of getting rid of Tebow too. At a certain point, that's a lot of smart people who seem to agree. 

He’s just not an accurate-enough thrower right now, but as Kelly told him, he needs to play the position in games, and the only place for him to do that now is in the Canadian Football League. If Tebow is serious about continuing his career in the NFL, he should be all about seeking a job in the CFL.

Real question: If Tebow is so dedicated to becoming an NFL quarterback, which isn't something I would normally doubt, then is it overly-prideful of him to not seek a job with the CFL in an effort to get back to the NFL eventually? Doesn't this show he isn't quite as dedicated to becoming an NFL quarterback as he claims to be? He wants to be an NFL quarterback and will work for it, but yeah, he's not going to do something like play in the CFL because that's below him, even if it is a way to where he could eventually get back in the NFL. We have heard all about how dedicated Tebow is, but is he dedicated when he's been told, "Here's the path you need to take" and refuses to take that path? Tebow is serious about playing quarterback in the NFL. He's not serious about playing quarterback in any other league that isn't the NFL to get there. That's a bit diva-like, isn't it? Especially when really good college quarterbacks are currently in the CFL. Somehow other quarterbacks swallow their pride and accept a job playing quarterback in the CFL, because they love to play quarterback and love to play football. Does Tebow like playing football or does he just like playing football in the NFL?

c. Tyrod Taylor is the quarterback of the Bills, and Matt Cassel is on the street. When the offseason began, Vegas odds (just kidding) had Cassel winning the starting job, E.J. Manuel the likely number two, and Tyrod Taylor fighting to fend off the rest of all available quarterbacks for number three. Taylor’s versatility and pleasantly surprising arm strength in camp won him the job. Now Cassel is hoping for a backup job somewhere else, and Houston (as Mike Florio reported Saturday) is a logical landing spot.

Houston is the landing spot for ex-Patriots backup quarterbacks who fooled other NFL teams into thinking they were real starting quarterbacks. Somebody has to make it stop. 

d. The trade for Kelcie McCray shows how serious the Kam Chancellor/AWOL situation is in Seattle. Clearly, the Seahawks are planning to play without Chancellor. That’s a serious situation. Read Greg Bishop’s enlightening story in this week’s Sports Illustrated to see for yourself how much of a leader and locker-room and on-field factor Chancellor is. But he wants to re-do his contract with three years left, and GM John Schneider isn’t willing to budge, for now, on at least making Chancellor’s contract increasingly guaranteed. 

While Peter was gnashing his teeth and worrying about Russell Wilson not being a Seahawk after this season, which again at the time was a ridiculous thought on par with "Are the Ravens going to let Joe Flacco go in free agency?," Kam Chancellor is the real Seahawks player who has the contractual issues. 

g. Andy Levitre, two years after being the highest-paid guard ever by Tennessee, got flipped to Atlanta for a sixth-round pick next year, plus a little more. Levitre should start for the Falcons, after costing Tennessee $1,015,625 per start in the past two years. (Do the division: $32.5 million, 32 starts.)

So Peter is going to eviscerate Levitre on a weekly basis now, right? He was stealing money from the Titans without contributing and ended up on the bench for the 2015 season. Levitre signed with the Titans and then completely didn't come through as he was supposed to, so much so that the Titans traded him. Under the Josh Freeman rule, it's time to eviscerate Levitre, especially if he doesn't start for the Falcons. I guess there is a difference in a guy getting paid $32.5 million to start over two seasons and a guy getting paid $2 million for one season that I'm just not aware of.

I'll never totally understand Peter's hatred for Josh Freeman.

i. One of the game’s best guards, Kyle Long, moves outside to tackle...A month ago, though, in Bears’ camp, Long told me he didn’t want to move, saying:“They’ll have to get a tractor to move me outside to tackle. I’d rather get in a fist fight in a phone booth [at guard] any day. Those guys outside, there’s too much space. Too scary out there.” Well now.

These are the guys who are blocking for Jay Cutler and he's the one with the bad attitude all the time. His tackle doesn't want to protect him at that spot on the offensive line because it's "too scary." I can't imagine why Cutler is in a foul mood all the time. 

5. I think this was the headline of the week in the NFL, from the New York Post, on Sunday, after the Eagles cut Tim Tebow: “GOD MAN OUT.”

Peter expected something better than this? Why would he? 

8. I think Carson Palmer has some interesting comments about football preparation.

On the air pressure he prefers in footballs: “The air is … we never mess with the air. Whatever is legal, he’s by the book. I never notice [if it’s 12.5 or 13.5 psi], I don’t know the difference but if it was low it would be great, obviously. The softer the ball, the easier it is to grip and throw a tighter spiral, especially if it’s wet, especially if it’s windy. If it's windy that throws a whole new angle at it. I’ll play in snow and rain but when it gets to 40- and 50-mph winds, if you can grab the ball a little bit better, it cuts the air better. If it’s rainy you can grip it a little better but between 12.5 and 13.5, I wouldn’t know.”

So what I'm hearing is that Carson Palmer likes a softer ball and has no idea whether the ball he throws has too much or too little air in it, but he definitely prefers a softer ball if possible. I think Roger Goodell should begin an investigation immediately into whether Carson Palmer has knowledge of football deflating. Turn over your phone, Carson!

On Brady: “It’s been so media-overload, when stuff like that starts happening, I just can’t even turn on ESPN. Rules are the rules. If the balls were below, the balls were below. There’s a reason.

Right, but Carson Palmer, who throws footballs for a living, just claimed he has no idea if a ball is over or under-inflated according to the NFL rules. He states he has no idea what the PSI of the ball is, so rules are rules, but if the balls were below, then the balls were below. He's missing the basic question of whether the balls were below. Tom Brady is expected to know the exact PSI of a ball even though Carson Palmer admits he wouldn't know the exact PSI of a ball unless he was told.

9. I think if you have a spare $18.88, a good investment that might yield a pretty great weekend is available at Weekend With The 88s. Carolina tight end Greg Olsen wears 88, and NASCAR driver Dale Earnhardt Jr. drives the number 88 car and is based in nearby Concord, N.C. If you win, you get a tour of Earnhardt’s garage and Bank of America Stadium on Saturday, Oct. 31; a helicopter ride to Earnhardt’s race on Sunday, and sideline passes and game tickets to the Panthers-Colts game in Charlotte on Monday night, Nov. 2. The fund-raiser benefits Levine Children’s Hospital in Charlotte, with is near to Olsen’s heart.

I see what you did there, Peter. Very tasteful. Did all of the kind words about Dr. Z and how much he is missed by his colleagues make his wife speechless? A fund raiser at Levine is close to Olsen's heart. This isn't egregious or anything, but considering what Olsen's son went through it's just another example of Peter writing something that isn't in the best of taste. Who cares though? How many people has Greg Olsen killed?

In 2012, Olsen’s son T.J. was born with a non-functioning left side of his heart, which required surgery, and he spent 40 days getting treatment there.

See, it's close to Olsen's heart because his son's heart didn't work! Get it? His son spent 40 days in the hospital getting his heart repaired and fundraisers at Levine Children's Hospital are close to Olsen's heart. Oh no! Another unintentional mini-gaffe from Peter. He doesn't intend to write these things, but they just happen. 

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

c. Jayson Stark with the MLB Factoid of the Year: Bryce Harper scored four runs Thursday for the Nationals without swinging at a pitch.

d. You can look it up. Four at-bats against Atlanta. Sixteen balls, four called strikes, four walks. Four runs and one RBI, and he never swung in 20 pitches.

This was against the Braves. The fact Bryce Harper had to actually step in the batter's box means this was unimpressive. I could score four runs against the Braves' pitching without even leaving the dugout.

e. Great read by ESPN.com’s Israel Gutierrez on a current event in his life.

Peter thinks Gutierrez is having a "gay wedding." 

h. A bad day, by the way, for the Christian Hackenberg-as-top-overall-2016-pick crowd.

Christian Hackenberg will be the top pick in 2016 in the same way that Jake Locker was going to be the top pick in 2010 or 2011. Just ignore his progression as a quarterback in college and convince yourself to see those things that you want to see. 

i. Regarding Matt Harvey and the Mets and James Andrews and the innings limit they’re fussing about: Why doesn’t Harvey have an MRI done right now, to see if his Tommy John-repaired elbow is in perfect condition? If it isn’t, then the innings limit seems wise. If the elbow looks fine, why not have a reasonable discussion about whether he should pitch as he’s normally pitching now?

j. I’m interested in hearing from an orthopedist, particularly one who has worked on pitching elbows, to see if that idea is reasonable, or malarkey.

I'm not an orthopedist, but I don't know if a doctor can look at an MRI and start to see a potential tear or problem in Harvey's elbow that he hasn't started to feel as of yet. I don't think elbows are like tread on tires where you can see how much it has been used and how much more it has left in it. I could be wrong about what an MRI shows regarding wear on an elbow, but this MRI idea sounds like a bad precedent as well. A precedent I probably wouldn't want to set if I were Matt Harvey. 

l. Beernerdness: So how was the MMQB Saison? Really, really good. Harpoon brewer Steve Theoharides took great care to brew a classic Saison—yellow, cloudy, flavorful, with a hint of banana and clove (don’t laugh; those are great hints of tastes in a beer).

Basically it takes like a fruity beer. Peter loves himself some beer that just doesn't taste like beer, but tastes like a cocktail mixed with beer. I don't mind a few occasionally, but Peter doesn't seem to drink anything but beer that has hints of fruit in it. 

The Adieu Haiku

My picks stink. So don’t
get ticked if it’s Bills-Niners.
Berman Super Bowl.

I'm not sure I understand this reference to Chris Berman or want to understand the reference. I do understand the Adieu Haiku stinks worse than Peter's Super Bowl pick. 

3 comments Despite His Having Four Super Bowl Rings, Dan Shaughnessy Still Thinks He's Smarter Than Bill Belichick

Dan Shaughnessy uses the phrase "The Patriot Way" in this column. I am betting he does this just to annoy people like me. Dan doesn't like that the Patriots refused to pick up the option for Darrelle Revis and then weren't able to sign him in free agency. He makes this clear through snark and discussing how the "system" is more important than the players, as if this strategy hasn't worked for the Patriots in the past. So despite the Patriots having just won a Super Bowl, Dan spends some time being snarky and suggesting he knows what is better for the Patriots then the incompetent Bill Belichick does. After all, it's been a whole couple of months and the Patriots still haven't won another Super Bowl. Dan thinks the Patriots may never win another Super Bowl now that they have allowed Revis to go to the Jets in free agency. Someone should do something about how Bill Belichick is wrecking the Patriots team.

The Patriots just lost their best defensive player. 

No, they re-signed Devin McCourty and Chandler Jones is still on the roster. Jerod Mayo is also coming back from injury, so it seems the Patriots still have quite a few guys who can be considered their best defensive player.

Greedy Darrelle is going to New York for a five-year, $70 million contract. He’s going to make $48 million over the first three years of his Jet contract. He’s now got $39 million in guaranteed money coming his way.

Yes, of course Darrelle Revis is greedy for maximizing his market value. We all know Dan Shaughnessy would NEVER take an opportunity to earn more income and maximize his value. Never. Ever. So fuck Darrelle Revis for trying to make as much money as possible during his career. This makes him greedy and not a good businessman.

The clever Patriots would not go for that. They reportedly stopped short at a guarantee of $35 million.

So, if the reports are true, this New England team, flush with cash, lost its best defensive player for $4 million.

The Patriots had around $14 million in cap space around the time that Revis was signed by the Jets. I'm not sure that would count as being flush with cap space. They couldn't afford to sign Revis to the contract that the Jets signed him to. Revis is earning $16 million during the 2015 season. It seemed pretty well-known, at least to me, that the Patriots couldn't keep both McCourty and Revis. Of course, when has Dan allowed reality to seep into his criticisms?

Naturally, you are all OK with this. You are Patriots fans. Your team just won a Super Bowl. You subscribe to a long-standing policy that your team will not pay stupid money for talent. Sure, the Patriots have the money, but that’s not the point.

No, it is the point. The point is that just because the Patriots have the money it doesn't mean they should spend that money.

The point is that players don’t matter. It is the system that matters. The system wins Super Bowls. The coach wins Super Bowls. The owner wins Super Bowls.

The quarterback wins Super Bowls too. At some point when this has been proven incorrect, then I would love for Dan Shaughnessy to point out when. The Patriots have shown they don't have to keep players who have hit free agency as long as they are able to find other players to serve as replacements. Dan is snarky about the system, but it works, so his snark is simply a sarcastic statement of fact.

Your team doesn’t do the foolish things that other teams do. And your team just won the Super Bowl. So who is going to question the Patriot way? Only a fool.

Or someone (namely, a sportswriter named "Dan Shaughnessy") who questions every move Boston-area teams make that don't match the conventional wisdom of what a team should do. Then when he is proven to be incorrect about his questioning of these moves, he simply moves on to the next issue he can gripe about sarcastically.

Clearly, the Jets are idiots. Again.

Maybe. Was the Jets' issue last year at the cornerback position? Partly, but that's a lot of money for a cornerback who the Jets already refused to pay just a few years ago. They may not be idiots, but it's a big investment in one player.

The Patriots rented Revis for one year and they got what they wanted. They won a Super Bowl. So line up and guzzle the Patriots Kool-Aid.

This is Dan's defense mechanism. He gets snarky and says something like, "Well, it worked for the Red Sox didn't it? So every move they make from now on will work, won't it?" in a desperate effort to lower the bar and move the goal posts, while distracting the reader from the fact Dan's upcoming criticism has no validity. No one is guzzling the Patriots Kool-Aid. They won a Super Bowl with Revis. Their plan worked.

Never mind that the Patriots could keep on winning Super Bowls and keep their best defensive player.

Could they though? Really think about that, Dan. Think hard. I'm not sure the Patriots could have kept Revis and McCourty.

It’s more important that they win at the negotiating table. It’s all about the value.

While being sarcastic in an effort to make the Patriots seem as though they are cheap, Dan is missing the point. It is important to win at the negotiating table. Good teams keep an eye on their salary cap situation for this year and 2-3 years down the road. It IS all about value. Losing at the negotiating table is how teams end up with millions in dead money which restricts their ability to make offseason moves that improve the team.

Dan just doesn't understand. Maybe the Patriots are cheap, but it works. Maybe Dan would have a point if it weren't for two small issues:

1. The Patriots' strategy of being cheap has paid off for almost 15 years now. They have been the most successful NFL franchise since 2001 using this strategy.

2. It is all about value at the bargaining table in order to sustain the long-term success of a team.

It’s about the value because the Patriots are not only the best team on the field. They are the smartest. They are the most clever. They are playing chess while the other dimwits are playing checkers.

And now Dan is trying to overstate the case in order to enter the Theater of the Absurd since his opinion in the real world has been proven to sound stupid.

Pity those foolish Steelers and Giants and Ravens and Broncos. And Jets. They do not know how to do business. The Patriots know how to win and they know how to do business.

But it's true. The Patriots do know how to do business. The results on the field support this point of view. The Steelers, Giants, Ravens and Broncos aren't foolish. It's not a zero-sum game like Dan is desperately trying to prove is true. The Patriots aren't smarter than every other team in the same way McDonald's isn't smarter than Wal-Mart, Target or Burger King. They are all successful, it's just they each have a different way of doing business. Target isn't stupid because Wal-Mart is smart. The same theory applies here. The Patriots have a good way of doing business that is proven to be successful. It doesn't mean other NFL teams don't have a good way of doing business themselves.

Everybody in this NFL-crazed nation knew the Patriots were never going to pay Revis $20 million for 2015, with a salary-cap hit of $25 million. But not everybody knew the Jets were going to lose their minds. That’s why they are the Jets.

So the Patriots should have given Revis the money the Jets gave Revis and this would have made the Patriots smart, but because the Jets gave Revis this money then they are losing their minds? I don't even understand the logic behind this comment.

They just added a great cornerback to their woeful, non-contending team. And the smarter-than-everybody Patriots no doubt believe they have a valid tampering claim against New York. It’s all there on tape. We heard Jets owner Woody Johnson gushing about Revis in December. Not cool.

Dan's basic point seem to be that he is going to talk sarcastically about how smart the Patriots are compared to the Jets, while seeming to truly believe the Patriots are smarter than the Jets...or something like that. Maybe not. Maybe the Patriots would have been smart to re-sign Revis, all while the Jets were dumb for re-signing Revis.

So now it’s time to fire up the Patriots media cartel. Time to demonize Revis.

You mean by calling him "greedy"? Or was that Dan making fun of Patriots fans for calling Revis greedy while not actually calling Revis greedy, unless Dan suddenly decides he does think Revis is greedy, in which case Dan was completely serious in calling him "Greedy Revis"?

Has anybody noticed that Revis only had two interceptions last year? Clearly, this guy is overrated. Right? And now we know for sure that he cares only about money. If he really cared about winning football, he would have stayed here for less. But no. Ultimately, Revis showed his true colors. He chose money over legacy. What a loser.

Dan is changing tone here almost as much as I change tone. It's difficult to keep up with. Clearly, he is being sarcastic right now about Revis being a loser. Most NFL players care only about money, it's just Revis is in a position to actually make more money.

If I may stray from the party line for a moment, there might be some legitimate questions here. If the Patriots were willing to make Devin McCourty the highest-paid safety (five years, $47.5 million), in football, why did they draw the line on Revis, who is better at corner than McCourty is at safety?

Perhaps, and this is a point that Dan seems to consistently miss, the Patriots could really not afford to keep both of them. McCourty was cheaper, and while not as talented as Revis, he allowed the Patriots to do something defensively that couldn't be replaced with another safety that was on the market or in the draft. Revis may be a better corner than McCourty is a safety, but it may be easier for the Patriots to replace the production of Revis than it is to replace McCourty's production. There are outside forces which are present and can move a player's value to his current team up or down.

And how are they going to take the hit of also losing Brandon Browner in the defensive backfield?

They may commit fewer defensive holding or pass interference penalties.

Revis changed everything in 2014. In the six seasons after the undefeated season of 2007, the Patriots were good, but never great; not even when they got back to the Super Bowl in Indianapolis against the Giants. They were always good enough to win the AFC East (like signing up for AOL), but they were not good enough to keep good offenses off the field when it mattered.

Oh, okay. Thanks for clearing up that the Patriots were good, but never great, when they went 72-24 over a six year span. The Patriots were 4-5 in the playoffs during that time and what happened again in the 7th year after the Patriots went undefeated? Oh yeah, they won the Super Bowl. I was always confused by whether the Patriots were good or great and always thought a 75% win rate in the regular season over six years was a pretty great record. It turns out that record is only good. I'm glad Dan Shaughnessy is here to point out the truths as his delusional mind sees them as it relates to a point he is looking to prove.

In 2014, Revis enabled the Patriots to play any kind of defense Belichick wanted. Revis routinely erased the best receiver on the other team. Calvin Johnson. A.J. Green, T.Y. Hilton. Revis got more Pro Bowl votes than any corner in the NFL. More votes than flavor-of-the-year Richard Sherman.

Richard Sherman is still a pretty good cornerback. I will not allow myself to be distracted by Dan Shaughnessy's shot at Richard Sherman based on such an idiotic metric as Pro Bowl votes.

We know the Patriots don’t like to work with a gun at their heads. They like value. They don’t spend to the cap and they don’t like to overpay. Just because somebody else is willing to pay stupid money, why should New England?

It really is a good strategy if an NFL team can continue winning games while using this strategy. Why should the Patriots overpay for a player simply because another team chooses to use this strategy in order to acquire or keep a player? Because acquiring big name players and spending money is exciting and keeps the local beat writers with fresh stories they can write during free agency?

Ordinarily, this thinking works with the Patriots and their fans. It’s “In Bill We Trust.’’ Fans support the team when Wes Welker leaves and when Logan Mankins is traded. Usually, this blind loyalty is rewarded.

Most always this blind loyalty has been rewarded. As long as fans don't hold the Patriots to the absurd standard of "Have they won the Super Bowl every single season?" then the blind loyalty has been rewarded with nearly a decade-and-a-half of sustained success. I can't see in what world there should be criticism of how the Patriots deal with personnel. Regardless of how strong the AFC East has been, the Patriots have won four Super Bowls since 2001 and their strategy on how they value players has proven to work. It's not easy to be as good as the Patriots have been for as long of time as they have been good. Of course, Dan has no perspective and just assumes because the Patriots haven't won the Super Bowl 10 more times in the last 14 years, then a different strategy in valuing their personnel would have changed that. He sees the Patriots' way of thinking as the problem surrounding why the Patriots aren't MORE successful, as opposed to viewing this thinking as the reason the Patriots have been this successful. Dan sucks.

It seemed that Revis was different. He was the best player at a crucial position. He delivered a Super Bowl.

You would have thought he was a guy the Patriots could not afford to lose.

When an NFL team says, "We afford to lose this guy" because of that player's perceived value, then that is how teams often end up overpaying for players it turns out they could have afforded to lose, even if they didn't want to lose that player.

But there is no such player. It’s not about any one player. It’s about the system.

Which is a system, that like it or not, has been proven to work for the Patriots.

The Patriots usually win, and sometimes lose, but at the bargaining table the Patriot Way is the only way.

There is no real "Patriot Way," but the Patriots do have a philosophy that seems to work. Dan Shaughnessy, of course, thinks that HIS way is better than the Patriots' way of doing business. After all, the Patriots haven't won the Super Bowl 10 times in the past 14 years. That's quite the record of failure. Just imagine how successful the Patriots could have been if they had utilized the Shaughnessy Way of dealing with personnel. They may have created a dynasty over the last decade-and-a-half. 

6 comments Flaming Hot Takes on Deflated Balls and the New England Patriots

I have a history of hating the Patriots. They have been too good at football over the last decade and a half and they beat my favorite team in the Super Bowl, which did not please me. I almost got in a fight with three Patriots fans in Charleston, South Carolina in the early 2000's because I insisted Tom Brady wasn't as good as he's given credit for while arguing with them and waiting in line for a hot dog from a street vendor at 2:30am. I was very inebriated AND wrong, which are two states of being that go hand-in-hand well. I'm still not a huge fan of them, partly because of their famous fans (Hey, Bill Simmons!), but I get over it and I'm more impressed by their long-term excellence at this point. So it turns out they deflated footballs against the Colts (at least during the first half) in the AFC Championship Game against the Colts. They then used regular footballs in the second half and buried the Colts. It seems like they played better without the deflated footballs. Either way, this is not legal and they are being killed by the general public. By "the general public" I mean "sportswriters with hot takes." I'm not going to defend cheating and I do believe the Patriots will be and should be punished in some way, but it's never enough with the media for the Patriots to get punished, something VERY SEVERE must be done. Sportswriters say this is the ABSOLUTE TURNING POINT AND HERE'S SOMETHING TO GET YOUR ATTENTION THAT'S BEING WRITTEN BY ME RIGHT NOW SO PAY ATTENTION. That's how hot takes happen.

Again, I'm not going to defend cheating, and once they figure out who deflated the balls then the punishment needs to be handed down, but these draconian hot takes just make me laugh. I can still agree the Patriots were in the wrong while also laughing at those who react strongly to the Patriots being in the wrong. They'll be punished, it's just a matter of when and how badly. It's fun to discuss sportswriters freaking out over the integrity of the game being ruined. I love a good disaster.

I'll start with Gregg Doyel, who spent most of the week up to the AFC Championship Game getting in contrived and immature fights with the New England media as a way of getting the word out there that he now works for the "Indy Star" and furthering his burgeoning brand/app/whatever. There's no such thing as bad press and Doyel got some press for getting in pissing contests with the New England media. So of course he jumps on the story of the Patriots deflating footballs.

Here's the thing about DeflateGate, this silly idea that the New England Patriots used under-inflated footballs in the AFC Championship Game against the Colts:

It's not silly.

It's the Patriots.

Gregg seems to use this reasoning a lot. It's not whether Gil Hodges should be in the baseball Hall of Fame or not, it's that he is Gil Hodges and that's why he should be in the Hall of Fame. The state of existing is the only reasoning Gregg needs.

Lots of people will forever believe the Patriots cheated the Colts on Sunday. Why? Because it's the Patriots.

Insightful. It needed to be mentioned twice apparently that the Patriots are the Patriots. I feel prepared to move on now.

Either you are, or you are not, willing to cheat.

And Belichick is. The NFL found him guilty of – even responsible for – the Spygate scandal during the 2007 season.

And yet, Belichick managed to escape the death penalty. How could that be?

With very few exceptions, people can be divided into various either/or categories: Employed or unemployed. Smoker or nonsmoker.

Cheater or not a cheater.

Yes, with very few exceptions there are no shades of gray. It's one extreme or another. This is EXACTLY how life works. No areas for maneuvering between two extremes. Welcome to the Gregg Doyel reality, now have a seat on the couch or chair, but don't even think about putting your feet on the loveseat because it doesn't exist in his reality. There's a couch or a chair. Choose one.

Indiana knows about this. The Hoosiers hired Kelvin Sampson in 2007, shortly after he had been busted for NCAA recruiting violations involving impermissible phone calls at Oklahoma. The idea in Bloomington, surely, was this: No way he'd do it again.

Since coming to work for the "Indy Star" Gregg has also been doing a lot of this "I'm an Indian/Indianaite/Indianan like you and here is an example specific to Indiana" stuff.

He did it again.

Oops.

Cheaters cheat. It's what they do.

Now then, is that a definitive statement that Bill Belichick or the Patriots cheated the Colts on Sunday? Nope. It is not.

Yes, it is a definitive statement. Cheater or not a cheater. Belichick has been proven to be a cheater so that's what he is. Remember, "divided into either/or categories" that's how it all works?

But it's a definitive statement that his past history of cheating makes this allegation – which is ludicrous and absurd and really, really, hard to believe – not so ludicrous. Not so absurd.

Specifically if you are still a little butt hurt that you talked trash all the way up to the AFC Championship Game about how the Colts would win and then they got their ass kicked. It makes it easier to believe the allegations are not absurd in this instance.

Butt hurt or not butt hurt. That is the question. Choose one. 

This sort of thing has happened before. Deflating a football is a thing, thanks to Lane Kiffin's 2012 USC Trojans, who were fined and reprimanded by the Pac-12 for deflating footballs against Oregon. Kiffin denied it. A team equipment manager was fired. Was the equipment manager acting on his own? Well sure, that's possible.

Just like it's possible the Patriots are utterly and completely innocent of the allegation against them now, that they deflated one or more footballs on the sideline after NFL officials had examined them before kickoff.

Maybe Lane Kiffin did it. Bill Belichick is close to Nick Saban and Lane Kiffin is Nick Saban's offensive coordinator and Lane Kiffin has deflated balls before. Where was Lane Kiffin on Sunday evening?

First, any idea how easy it is to deflate a football?

No Gregg, I have no idea how to deflate a football. It sounds like a complicated procedure.

It requires one little needle. That's it. Hold the ball, jab the needle, listen for the hiss. Take the needle out.

Take the needle out or don't take the needle out. One or the other.

Second, any idea how awkward it feels to write this story from here, in Indianapolis, as if deflated balls might be the reason this city's team lost on Sunday? The footballs aren't the reason. That game wasn't about the Deflatriots. It was about the Patriots. They're better than the Colts, so much better than lots of us – the line starts right here – had given them credit for. The Patriots were tougher, more skilled, more poised and more innovative. In hindsight the Colts had no chance.

Nice way to bring the story of the Patriots deflating footballs back to you, while also linking your old hot takes. Really the deflating of footballs was about Gregg Doyel more than anything.

Third: What if?

Great point. It gives me a lot to think about.

What if the NFL finds that the Patriots were in fact using a football that was deflated below regulation levels? Maybe the NFL won't be able to determine when or how it happened.

What then?

Obviously Belichick will have to be stripped of his hoodie and forced to work slave labor in the mines of whatever country has the most dangerous mines to work in.

Maybe then Belichick will get the black lung after a day or two of working in the mines and he'll die. Because that's what Belichick deserves, to die.

I'm kidding of course. Doyel's suggestion isn't this extreme, but is equally as stupid.

I'll tell you what should happen: The Patriots should be removed from the Super Bowl. Which means the Colts should be going to Glendale.

An Indianapolis writer thinks the Colts deserve to go to the Super Bowl. Homer or not a homer? Choose one and there is no gray area.

Someone on the Patriots deflated those footballs, but I'm not sure that was the difference in the game nor does a satisfactory punishment seem to be to allow an unworthy team to be in the Super Bowl.

Will this happen? Of course not, which is why I'm mentioning it way down the story – it has to be said somewhere – but not starting this column with that idea. Because it's a preposterous idea, not worthy of the headline. The NFL would never, ever remove the Patriots from the Super Bowl, even if it does find they were using illegal footballs.

Nice troll job, Gregg. Here's how this troll job worked.

-Gregg says what SHOULD happen.

-Gregg says this won't happen.

-Gregg says his own idea of what should happen is so preposterous it doesn't deserve being mentioned in the headline.

-But again, the preposterous idea of what should happen wasn't so crazy or unworthy that Gregg doesn't think it shouldn't happen.

It's a nice way of coming up with a crazy punishment and then not standing by it.

Cheating can't be tolerated. Simple as that. A team can't use an under-inflated football, get caught, and then be allowed to play its next game – a game it reached by winning the one with the deflated football – as if nothing happened.

Cheating can't be tolerated. I can agree with that. But I thought sending the Colts to the Super Bowl was an unworthy idea that didn't merit a mention. Now all of a sudden it's the idea Gregg is building the end of this column around.

Contradictory or not contradictory. Choose one and there is no gray area.

Not a fine, not a docking of draft picks, not even a lifetime suspension of Belichick, though I would support all three, if the Patriots are found guilty of cheating. Sorry -- left out a word. If the Patriots are found guilty of cheating … again.

So the preposterous idea that won't happen and doesn't seem worthy of a headline is the best punishment for the Patriots in Gregg Doyel's opinion. I wonder if he understands how stupid this sounds.

Meantime, allow the system to run its course. The Patriots are innocent until proven guilty. They deserve that.

Even if lots of us have made up our minds already.

Because the Patriots deserve that, too.

(Bengoodfella burns himself closing the article because the hot take is still simmering)

Now Bob Kravitz chimes in with his own hot take about what should happen to the Patriots.

If the NFL deems that the Patriots doctored the footballs to the team's advantage in Sunday's game, one of two things must happen:

Indianapolis writers are all about there being two options. Obviously the two options here are:

1. Death penalty

2. Life imprisonment without parole

If Patriots owner Robert Kraft has an ounce of integrity, he will fire Bill Belichick immediately for toying with the integrity of the game for the second time in his otherwise magnificent career — the first issue being the SpyGate fiasco that earned Belichick and the team fines and a forfeited first-round draft choice.

Okay, that could happen. It sounds sort of dramatic though.

If Roger Goodell has an ounce of integrity,

We could stop here. The answer to this is known already. If it helps the NFL, Goodell does it. If it hurts the NFL, Goodell Jedi-waves it away.

and he's not spending all his time going to pre-game soirees at Kraft's mansion, he will not only fine Belichick and take away draft choices, but suspend the head coach for the upcoming Super Bowl.

Does this sound excessive?

The whole "ounce of integrity" thing sounds a bit dramatic.

It is very hard for me to believe — no, it's impossible for me to believe — that this was one large, cosmic accident. A deflated football, and we're talking about two pounds worth of deflation,

Yes, but not a real two pounds of deflation. A typical football weighs less than a pound. Otherwise quarterbacks would be slinging just short of the equivalent of two newborn babies around the field in the form of a football. So two pounds of air isn't two pounds like most people think of pounds. It's noticeable, but not to the extent Bob Kravitz paints it as being. The Colts-Patriots officials touched the football after every play and managed to not notice the ball was semi-deflated.

It's very hard for me to believe that some rogue ball boy, acting on his or her own, unilaterally decided to use a pressure gauge to independently take some of the air out of the ball.

There's only one way this could happen, and that's with Belichick's full knowledge and approval.

Nope, it could also happen with the approval of Josh McDaniels without Belichick knowing. Think Jon Gruden knew that Brad Johnson took air out of the football during the 2003 Super Bowl? Maybe, maybe not.

Go ahead and chalk it all up as sour grapes on the part of the Colts, who would have lost badly had they used a beach ball, a hockey puck or a badminton shuttlecock. But, the Colts noticed something odd about the football when D'Qwell Jackson intercepted Tom Brady. Jackson himself told me he didn't notice anything strange, but, then, the Colts want to distance themselves from this thing as much as they can.

So D'Qwell Jackson did or didn't notice something strange? Kravitz says Jackson noticed something strange, but Jackson claims he didn't notice something strange. Of course, Kravitz assumes Jackson is lying in order to show his ounce of integrity in protecting the very same cheaters that Kravitz claims lack integrity for covering up the use of deflated footballs. Jackson is either lying or he isn't.

General Manager Ryan Grigson walked over to the Colts public relations spot and took a phone call, and seemed quite perturbed. This was very unusual for a general manager who spends his time quietly watching the game from the press box.

Was this investigation inspired by the Colts? I have no doubt that it was.

So if Jackson is lying about noticing something strange, what does that say about his integrity? Or does he have integrity by staying out of his whole thing? What if Tom Brady is lying about noticing whether the football was deflated or not? Is he staying out of it or lacking an ounce of integrity?

This was cheating — pure and simple.

And either Kraft or Goodell have to do something very dramatic to make it clear that this kind of nonsense will not be tolerated.

If it was anybody but Belichick, if it was a coach who has no history of attempting to circumvent the rules, it would be worth a fine and maybe a draft choice.

See the penalty of deflating footballs isn't such a big deal, but because it's Bill Belichick it becomes a much bigger deal. Because as sportswriters love to point out, sports doesn't deal with innocent before guilty, but apparently sports does have an off-the-books "three strikes" or "repeat offender" rule that should be used for Belichick's latest transgression.

And here, too, is the shame of it: Belichick doesn't need to cheat. His team is that much better than anyone else, save the Seattle Seahawks. We'll find out more about that next Sunday.

Not if Gregg Doyel has his way.

Let's be honest about this: If the balls were properly inflated this past Sunday, the Patriots would have won…um…45-7. The footballs had little or nothing to do with the outcome. The Pats simply ran over the Colts. They out-coached them and out-played them. Badly.

Which is why it would be stupid to remove the Patriots from the Super Bowl.

Winning without honor, without integrity, is not winning. (Unless you're a myopic Patriots fan).

I can agree that winning without integrity isn't winning. To deflate a football against the rules is to lack integrity. I can't figure out how much integrity it really shows is lacking. The Patriots didn't win because they deflated the football. That much is agreed upon. Is deflating the football lack as much integrity as a baseball groundskeeper who landscapes the foul lines to favor the home team's hitters (such as helping the ball stay in play on bunts, etc)? Is deflating the football lack as much integrity as the Minnesota Twins starting fans behind home plate when the home team is at-bat? If Clayton Kershaw was found to have scuffed a baseball during a playoff game and the Dodgers went on to win the series, should Kershaw not be allowed to play in the next series when the Dodgers advance? Should the Dodgers even advance to the next series because they had a player cheat in the previous playoff series? I don't know the answers to these questions, so that's why it is hard for me to jump on the "LOOK AT THE LACK OF INTEGRITY!" train because I have no idea how deflating a football equates to other equal or non-equal minor changes that are legal or not legal in other sports. Does it lack integrity that Boise State's uniforms blend in with their playing surface, thereby giving the team a slight advantage at home?

It was instructive to spend early-morning Wednesday on a couple of Boston radio shows. They wanted to know if Aaron Rodgers should be penalized for admittedly over-inflating footballs. (Not if they're within the prescribed PSI). One wanted to know if Pete Carroll should be fired because so many Seahawks have been popped for using performance-enhancing drugs. One moron even rolled out the Nixonian “well everybody cheats'' argument, which inspired blind laughter on my part. All deflections from the issue at hand.

They are deflections, but also legitimate questions that need to be asked. If Seahawks players were busted for PED's, doesn't that lack integrity too? Why shouldn't Pete Carroll pay for this transgression? If a head coach knows the football his team is using was partially deflated, then wouldn't that same coach know his players are using PED's? Maybe.

Kraft needs to do the right thing. Goodell needs to do the right thing. Belichick should not be coaching in the Super Bowl, or worse.

Or worse. What's worse than not coaching in the Super Bowl? Should the Patriots be forced to trade Tom Brady? Perhaps the Patriots should be stripped of all draft picks until Bill Belichick is publicly drawn and quartered. Bob Kravitz knows deflating the footballs had no impact on the Colts-Patriots game and there is really no precedent in the NFL for deflating footballs, but one thing is for sure. The response must be severe, swift, and be "the right thing" even though few people even know what the fuck that is.

Chris Chase chimes in with his own hot take about how the Patriots should be disqualified from playing in the Super Bowl.

Cheat on a test in school? You fail, no questions asked.

Really? No questions asked? No questions like, "How did you cheat?," "Was anyone else cheating?," nothing like that?

Cheat on your taxes, the IRS will find you. It won’t be pretty.

They may not find you. I've seen plenty of people who cheat in minor ways on their taxes who have never been caught or audited.

The New England Patriots cheated in the AFC championship. As such, the team should be disqualified from the Super Bowl.

(The hot take sizzles on the ground)

Deflating 11 of 12 balls in Sunday’s game, as has been reported by ESPN, is a major violation and something that had a great affect on the game.

Apparently it has a 30+ point effect, even though the Patriots only used the deflated footballs during the first half.

Given the number of deflated balls, it’s almost impossible this was accident, meaning that someone in the New England organization willfully tampered with the rules to give his team an advantage.

Not exactly. Given that nearly all of the footballs were inflated to the wrong pressure it could show this was an accident. If the gauge measuring the pressure in the ball was in error or the person pumping up the balls had the wrong pressure (by accident) then it was a consistent error. If the footballs were all at different pressures with only half of the footballs at the wrong pressure then I could see how the rules have been tampered with. 11 of the 12 footballs being at the wrong level could speak to a consistent error in measuring the pressure. Of course I don't believe this happened, but a consistent error like this could show malfeasance or possibly just a basic error that caused the balls to be improperly inflated.

Of course, it’s not realistic to disqualify New England from the Super Bowl.

Why do the sportswriters who first suggest banning New England from the Super Bowl follow it up with "That's not realistic"? Stop suggesting this solution if the solution isn't realistic.

But, again, they should.

But, again, it's not realistic. But, again, they should. You know, if it weren't unrealistic. But, again, they still should. Though it is unrealistic. It's probably a good penalty. Even though it is unrealistic. Still, the NFL should ban the Patriots from the Super Bowl. It's just not realistic to do this. But, again, it should happen. If only it were realistic. Which it isn't. Though it should be.

The defenders of New England have been even more laughable than they were during the videotape controversy of 2007. “It doesn’t even help that much!” Sure it doesn’t. That’s why they were doing it. Of course it helps. Deflating gave Brady an easier grip on the ball (at least in the first half; there’s question about whether the balls were re-inflated at half time when it was 17-7).

I'm not a defender of New England. I simply know it was an advantage that didn't seem to show up too much on the scoreboard in the first half as compared to the Patriots performance in the second half without the deflated footballs. New England re-inflated the balls at halftime and began to destroy the Colts from that point on...with re-inflated footballs. I have no idea how much a deflated football affected this game and I don't know if anyone else has this answer either.

If it’s found out that Bill Belichick knew anything about this, even after the fact, Draconian sanctions are the only way to go...If Sean Payton gets suspended for an entire year because of Bountygate, Belichick deserves at least the same thing. He affected the sanctity of the game and fairness of one of the three biggest battles of the year.

I would disagree with this. I think intentionally injuring opposing players is worse than deflating footballs. I know deflating footballs involves the whole "integrity of the game" thing, but intentionally injuring opposing players is causing physical harm outside of the game being played. I think that's worse.

Draft picks should be taken away, not for one year, but for two or three, because the Pats are always picking toward the end of the first round anyway. Or take away some salary cap space, like the league unjustly did to the Washington Redskins and Dallas Cowboys.

Yes, the NFL should choose to take away salary cap space in the same injust way they did it to the Washington Redskins and Dallas Cowboys.

But I’ll happily blame the Patriots for being skeezy once again. I’ll blame Belichick because, as Goodell said about Payton during Bountygate, the head coach is supposed to know what’s going on with his team.

Oh, so you are going to use Roger Goodell's words as it pertains to knowing exactly what a supervisor's knowledge concerning his underlings actions should be? Okay then.

I’ll blame Tom Brady who clearly knew the balls were deflated but is getting off scot-free in this controversy because he’s the Golden Boy and is handsome and is married to a supermodel. (It’s amazing how no one criticizes Brady. He’s just as guilty as the others.) But there’s blame for others too.

How about the Patriots' center who handled the football on every play? How about the officials who handle the football after every play? The officials are there to enforce the rules and since deflating footballs by two or three pounds is just SO FUCKING NOTICEABLE one would wonder why the officials didn't notice.

But in the here and now, if the report is true, the New England Patriots should be hit hard. But they won’t and the Pats legacy will grow even more.

This will not deflate the Pats legacy.

With a Super Bowl win in two Sundays, people will be inclined to say Bill Belichick is the greatest coach of all time. But at what?

The greatest coach at football. I can't wait for Belichick to be up for Pro Football Hall of Fame induction. The NFL gets it's very own asterisked PED user when Belichick comes up for enshrinement.

Mark Kiszla is also prepared to blame Tom Brady and wonders why nothing ever sticks to him. Kiszla says Brady is like Barry Bonds. Yep, those words were written.

As I was writing this post, I found these words from Boomer Esiason. It doesn't excuse what the Patriots did or didn't do, but it shows there is more than the "It's just like the Patriots to stretch the rules" narrative that is being pushed. It seems other quarterbacks had an issue with the integrity of the game, including Saint Peyton Manning, who wanted to be allowed to scuff up the football. I'm sure he never scuffed it up without permission though.

Tom Brady is too good to be true. At age 37, the sexy quarterback of the New England Patriots looks cool, whether wearing a championship ring on his finger or Uggs on his feet. He married a supermodel straight from the pages of the Victoria's Secret catalogue. And his hair is perfect.

Not really. In his long hair phase, it was pretty disgusting. 

Too good to be true. Isn't that what we once believed about Tiger Woods and Lance Armstrong?

Deflating footballs is now equivalent to using PED's, slandering others when they choose to call you out on using PED's, and cheating on your wife. Got it. At least Kiszla comes out swinging and throwing his hot takes around. I'd be disappointed otherwise. 

In a league ruled by quarterbacks, made filthy rich by quarterbacks and personified by quarterbacks, Brady is the undisputed king. Oh, Peyton Manning might sing about chicken parm in a television commercial. It's Brady, however, who owns three Super Bowl rings. He's the No. 1 quarterback of his NFL-crazy generation.

Every generation is QB-crazy. It's the most publicized position in the NFL, which explains why fans are QB-crazy. 

Before any knucklehead calls for disqualification of New England from the Super Bowl tournament because the Pats played with squeezably soft footballs inflated significantly below the league requirements, let's make it clear the Colts, the Broncos or anybody else weren't going to win in Gillette Stadium on a rainy evening in January.

Because that's unrealistic. Though it should happen. But, again, it is unrealistic. Still, it should happen. 

But as defensive tackle Terrance Knighton, the social media conscience of the Denver locker room, declared on Twitter: "If the footballs were deflated by that amount, it's definitely cheating. Harder to fumble, easier to catch, and helps you throw further."

Who would benefit the most from the deflated footballs?

Brady.

As well as Blount and the Patriots' receivers. They would all benefit the most. Though I would also add that if the football is easier to catch then the opposing team's secondary should find it easier to intercept a pass, right? Maybe D'Qwell Jackson made the interception because the ball was deflated so much. 

Long on the record with his affinity for throwing with an underinflated football, Brady tossed three touchdown passes against Indy in wet conditions where having a firm grip on a slippery pigskin definitely could have helped him.

Peyton Manning is on record as liking a scuffed ball. If the Broncos ended up using a scuffed ball, does that mean Manning did it? 

But let me humbly ask: If suspected cheaters in baseball are treated with such disdain in Hall of Fame balloting and Armstrong fell so hard from grace for the same transgressions committed by so many cyclists in a tainted sport, then why is there not more outrage about the Patriots?

Oh dear God. Because using a deflated football is the same thing as using performance enhancing drugs? The are equivalent misdeeds? That's really what Mark Kiszla is claiming? This seems like a pretty tenuous comparison to me. 

Because cheaters never win. Or so are we were taught in elementary school.

It's not the truth that hurts. It's the shrapnel from the shattered myth that makes us bleed.

I have known for years that cheaters do win. No shattered myth here. 

Not all forms of cheating are created equal. But, in his heart, maybe, just maybe, Brady isn't all that different from Barry Bonds.
 
Yes, maybe Tom Brady is exactly like Barry Bonds. Really there is no difference in these two athletes. It's like Kiszla has a hot takes handbook with key words in it and he found the name "Barry Bonds" in the book, so he felt like adding Bonds' name to this column for maximum hot sports take result.

Maybe Tom Brady is more like Bernie Madoff. Brady asks for his fans to buy into him as a clean-cut guy who plays the game "the right way" but he's really taking the fans investment in him and then selling that investment to Satan himself, while continuing to ask for more investment in him as a football player and person, all while putting on a public face of being an angel. This public face of an angel tricks his investors into thinking Brady is doing something with their investment of love and fandom that he really isn't doing. At the end of the day, the fans have nothing to show for their investment in Brady, while he rides off into the sunset with Super Bowl trophies, MVP trophies, and his name as one of the greatest quarterbacks ever. Tom Brady is Bernie Madoff. 

Tom Brady you are a PED user who ran Ponzi Scheme so evil, which affected the outcome of the AFC Championship Game in such an obvious way, that even the officials who touched the football after every offensive play didn't know you were obviously taking the air out of the football. Go train for the upcoming baseball season with Barry Bonds and Alex Rodriguez and may the fates deal with you as they see fit.