0 comments An Old, Fiery Pre-Draft Hot Take on Cam Newton

(I didn't mean to post this, but it's been read, so go down to the next post and read MMQB for this week, it's really, really, really good (not at all) and I don't accuse Peter of loving young men this week)

I don't like writing about my favorite team on this here ol' blog, but this old Bleacher Report article must be addressed. This is representative of the type of articles Bleacher Report used to churn out on a more frequent basis. To call it trolling would be underestimating the terribleness of the writing. To call it any form of sports journalism would be laughable. This dude from Bleacher Report begged for pageviews by writing an article titled, "Cam Newton: Why Carolina Panthers' New QB is the Worst Draft Pick Ever." Sadly, this might be the highlight of this article and it is downhill from there. He's spitting fire and getting attention. That's what it is all about for the author. I wouldn't normally post something like this, but the author is so sure of it and continues his bullshit on his Bleacher Report profile. So, from May 9, 2011, here is a hot draft take.

The author is probably even more pissed-off now that Newton got a $100+ million contract. 

Cam Newton is a sure-fire bust.

A sure-fire bust. Close the doors, put the chairs up on the tables, because it's all over before it begins.

I am so certain of this that if he is the Panthers' starting quarterback in 2016, I will buy a Cam Newton jersey and stand in the stadium parking lot in my underwear when the Panthers come to Tampa Bay

I am certain that I would not want to see this. I am also certain that the author will have to do this unless Newton suffers a season-ending injury of some kind during the 2016 season. To be clear, the author would be cheering for a season-ending injury to Cam Newton.

and hold a sign proclaiming that Auburn rules over Florida and Carolina rules over Tampa Bay.

Not that he has this fiery hot take purely for the sake of attention, but if he's wrong then he wants the world to give him more attention. What's really happening is the author is a Buccaneers fan and doesn't like Auburn, plus Cam transferred from his favorite college football team. There is a lot of biased, irrational hatred towards Newton built up in the author.

This guy will be long gone by then. Here are just a few of the reasons why I believe he will make Ryan Leaf only the second-biggest draft bust in history.

What's really sad is the author spits out hot takes in an effort to gain attention and he can't even succeed at that. He has 11 followers on Twitter and even Bleacher Report doesn't seem to want him writing for them anymore.

1. Cam Newton has not had enough experience as a starting quarterback to warrant a No. 1 pick. He only really played one year of meaningful college football. Yes, it was a fantastic year. Yes, his team went undefeated and won it all. But it was still only one year. How do we know that it wasn't a fluke?

While it was a valid point that Newton didn't have a ton of experience starting in college, it doesn't mean he was going to be a bust in the NFL. He started at a junior college before he played for Auburn for one season. Maybe that's not "meaningful" enough to have played at a junior college.

How do we know that Auburn didn't win because of a fantastic supporting cast? We don't.

Yes, "we" don't, except for the fact there were probably 2-3 players other than Newton on that offense that would even have a chance of playing in the NFL. So a few years down the road, it's easy to see he didn't have a fantastic supporting cast. Even at the time, Auburn wasn't spitting out NFL prospects on offense.

2. Cam Newton has never lost a game as a starting quarterback. Wouldn't it be nice to know how he will react when he does lose a game?

Newton is TOO MUCH of a winner. This is an interesting reason to say he would be the biggest draft bust in NFL history. Newton wins too many games, what will it be like when he starts losing games? Because I'm sure Newton would have been the first college quarterback to come to the NFL and start experiencing losing at a higher rate than he experienced in college. This isn't a battle only Newton would face, so it's not a reason to claim Newton would be the biggest bust in NFL draft history either.

Is he going to learn from his mistakes? Is he going to repeat them?

Again, these aren't questions that would be exclusive to Cam Newton. Your reasoning sucks.

Will he go all "Vince Young" and threaten to hurt himself?

Yes, yes, will he go all "Vince Young." They are both black quarterbacks who won national titles. Will Cam Newton threaten to commit suicide when he doesn't become the winner in the NFL that he thought he would be? In fairness to the author, this question is still up in the air and will be until the day Cam Newton dies. Will Cam Newton, at some point, kill himself? The author asks the tough questions with no easy answers.

Will he lose all confidence? We don't know. Sure would be nice to know these things before using a No. 1 pick though.

Considering it's impossible to know these things about ANY NFL DRAFT PICK THAT IS EVER SELECTED, it would be nice to know these things. If only Cam Newton's future could have been predicted much in the same way most draft picks can have their future predicted. It would be nice to know how a draft pick will react to losing, but...ummm...that's impossible to know for any draft pick so the author's reasoning still sucks.

3. Cam Newton is no brainiac. From all accounts, he came off as an idiot on Jon Gruden's show on ESPN. He looked as if he had no idea what was going on. He was stumped by Gruden's questions. Some even said he looked bored.

Perhaps Newton was bored to death. Was Newton looking to go all "Vince Young" and threaten to hurt himself while on Jon Gruden's show? THESE ARE THE TOUGH QUESTIONS THE AUTHOR IS WILLING TO ASK THAT NO ONE ELSE WOULD TOUCH!

Did he get by at Auburn on sheer athletic ability? Of course he did. He's a freak athlete.

Actually, Newton isn't really a freak athlete in terms of speed or athletic ability. He doesn't run extremely fast, but he's fast for his size and hard to bring down. He has a great arm as well. Still, a lot of college players get by on athleticism. It doesn't mean that player will be a bust in the NFL.

But this is the NFL. 

THIS IS THE NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE WITH NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE PLAYERS!

There are many people alleging that the real reason Cam Newton left the University of Florida was not because he was caught with a stolen laptop computer, but because he was caught with papers written by other students.

This is a character issue, not a reason that Newton can't play quarterback at the NFL level.

Now, I don't know if this is true or isn't true. But before I used a No. 1 pick on this guy, I'd sure want to consider the possibility that it could be true.

And how on Earth would this brain dead author know that the Panthers didn't check on whether Newton really plagiarized another student's paper? Because the guy who writes for Bleacher Report has so many connections in the NFL that he is aware of every investigation every NFL team starts on every prospect they are considering drafting? It's ridiculous to think the author will criticize an NFL team for not considering a possibility he has no idea whether they considered or not.

It tells us that he is not smart enough to do his own work and get a passing grade. But you expect him to outsmart guys like Dick LeBeau?

A quarterback isn't expected to outsmart the opposing defensive coordinator. He's expected to run the plays that are called, recognize the coverage, and find the open receiver or audible to another play. Few quarterbacks are expected to outsmart the opposing defensive coordinator any more than recognize what the opposing defense is trying to do.

I like how the author thought Cam Newton is stupid because there is a rumor he was caught with papers written by other students and KNOWS Carolina didn't check up on this. Brilliant writing.

When things are going rough for the team, Cam is going to be the guy the other players are going to look to for leadership. How is that going to work? He has no credibility. His word means nothing.

Gee, this almost seems like a personal opinion of Cam Newton and not an opinion that he will be the biggest NFL bust ever because of his skill set.

5. Cam cannot hit the broad side of a barn with a football. All other issues aside, isn't the number one job of an NFL quarterback to complete passes?

His completion percentage was 3rd in the SEC. It's not like being 1st in the SEC, but Newton completed 66% of his passes to a group of receivers few have heard of or remember.

Did you NFL guys not watch the BCS title game? How many touchdowns did Cam leave on the table by missing receivers who were running free? That game should not have even been close.

His completion percentage was 58.8% in the BCS title game. I don't remember how many receivers he missed, but given the author's ability to be intellectually honest and fair, I'm sure he's telling the complete truth here.

On Newton's pro day at Auburn, there were reports of him missing receivers badly while throwing against air. What will happen when he has NFL defensive linemen with bad intentions bearing down on him?

With no sense of irony, the author is about to cape up for Tim Tebow. When Florida won the National title, Tebow's completion percentage was 60% in that BCS title game.

How can an NFL franchise waste a No. 1 draft pick on a guy with this many question marks? Last year all we heard was how Tim Tebow was not worth risking a first-round pick because of his throwing motion—not just the top pick, but anywhere in the top 32.

And what we have here is a University of Florida football fan who just doesn't like Cam Newton because he (the author) is a Tim Tebow fan. Mystery solved. Trolling reason now obvious.

Name another issue with Tebow. Character? Please. Intelligence? No. Accuracy? Not really.

Accuracy was an issue for Tebow. One issue for Tebow is quarterbacking ability, which is a trait that most NFL quarterbacks need to have that Tebow seems to somewhat lack. Newton may be a terrible person who missed an open receiver in an important game, but his skills translated better to the NFL than Tebow's did.

Yet somehow because he came from a spread system he was deemed unworthy of a top pick. Guess what system Cam came from.

As always when it comes to Tebow fanatics, this is really about Tebow more than it is about Cam Newton (or whatever NFL player, usually a quarterback, that is being discussed). Tebow was deemed unworthy because he had a long motion and NFL teams didn't see how his leadership skills combined with his quarterbacking ability translated to the NFL.

So how is it we go from "Tebow sucks" to "Cam is awesome" in one year?

Cam Newton will be the biggest bust in NFL draft history because Tebow doesn't suck? Of course.

When these two guys played on the same team for two years, Cam was the one riding the bench while Tebow was breaking records and winning championships.

The stupidity of this statement can not be understated. Tebow was a sophomore and Newton was a true freshmen. When Tebow played on the same team as Chris Leak, it was Chris Leak who was the starter while Tebow only played sparingly in certain packages. Does that mean Chris Leak had a better NFL future than Tim Tebow did? Of course not. That's one reason why this statement is incredibly stupid. Tom Brady sat the bench at Michigan for Drew Henson at times. Drew Brees sat behind Billy Dicken at Purdue, so obviously that means Dicken would go on to a storied NFL career while Brees would bust, right?

So how is it that the treatment of Cam by the "draft people" is 180 degrees different than Tebow's? I don't know.

So what does this have to do with Cam Newton being the biggest bust in NFL draft history? I don't know. What I do know is saying Newton will be the biggest bust in NFL draft history based on questions that nearly every other draft prospect has about them probably isn't the best reasoning for coming to this conclusion.

Let's ask Denver Broncos fans if they would like to trade Tebow for Newton straight up.

Yes, after Peyton Manning retires perhaps you should ask this question. I'd be very interested to hear the answer.

They would laugh in your face. Football fans know even if the experts have no clue. We can spot a fraud when we see one.

I agree that football fans can spot a fraud when they see one. I'm looking at you, author of this column. I have spotted you. A fraud. You. Even Bleacher Report doesn't want you anymore. Right now, people are laughing in this author's face. Such is life for trolls.

In five years, when Tebow is leading Denver into the playoffs and Cam Newton is riding someone's bench, remember this article.

Oh, this article is remembered and will never be forgotten. This last sentence is the best. Notice how this article went from "Why Cam Newton is the Biggest Bust in NFL Draft History" to "Why Do People Like Cam Newton More than Tim Tebow?" It's almost like the author came to a conclusion on one player based on his feelings for another player. Football fans like this author would never do that though, because they can spot a fraud when they see one. In 2016, football fans can spot a fraud in the Tampa Bay parking lot wearing a Cam Newton jersey and only his underwear. 

6 comments Skip Bayless Further Confirms His Awfulness by Writing about Peyton Manning's Legacy

This article was written before the Super Bowl. I wish I had a chance to post it prior to the Super Bowl, but I couldn't find a way to squeeze it in. Fortunately, bad journalism has no expiration date. Skip Bayless makes Peyton Manning's legacy all about Skip Bayless. See Skip Bayless thinks that Peyton Manning is a great regular season quarterback, but this makes Skip Bayless wonder why Manning doesn't play as well in the postseason, which makes Skip Bayless question Manning's legacy. Mostly Manning's legacy is about Skip Bayless and his perception of Peyton Manning. Skip isn't able to discuss Manning's NFL legacy with any type of impartiality or perspective because Skip doesn't know how to make any discussion of an athlete not about him. So while Skip was right about how difficult the Seahawks defense is, not shockingly he makes Manning's legacy about him.

The problem with Skip and so many sportswriters is the idea their reactions are based mainly on the immediacy of the event. John Elway lost three Super Bowls early in his career and won two Super Bowls in his last two seasons. Idiot sportswriters only remember Elway going out a winner, so his legacy is that of a winner, despite having a career losing record in the Super Bowl. Tom Brady won three Super Bowls early in his career and hasn't won another since, so now certain idiots question whether he's good enough to win a Super Bowl. Peyton Manning didn't win a Super Bowl early in his career, but won one in the middle of his career and has lost two Super Bowls since. So obviously there needs to be a discussion about his legacy. Let's forget he's still one Super Bowl loss behind John Elway, yet it doesn't matter because Elway went out a winner. The immediacy is all that matters and in the immediate time, Peyton Manning can't win a Super Bowl and has a losing career playoff record. Summing up Manning's career legacy based on his postseason postseason is just as stupid as summing up Jack Morris's career legacy based on his postseason performance.

I've never been the biggest Peyton Manning fan.

I've never cared what you think about a certain athlete. Your opinion is usually stupid. LeBron James sucks, Tim Tebow is great...it's all very confusing and obvious trolling.

I've long admired his dedication and the dignity with which he treats the game and its history. But even now I remain skeptical of his postseason legacy, which has never measured up to a status I conceded three years ago: Greatest Regular-Season Quarterback Ever.

So Skip remains skeptical of Manning's postseason legacy because Manning isn't as successful in the postseason as he is in the regular season and Manning can't live up to what Skip Bayless thinks about Manning during the regular season. So Bayless is skeptical of Manning because he can't live up to the expectations Bayless has for Manning. Sure, makes sense.

Of course, for Peyton Manning, whose little brother Eli has two Super Bowl wins (over Tom Brady!)

Two Super Bowl wins over Tom Brady makes these authentic two Super Bowl wins. Tom Brady has Super Bowl victories over Kurt Warner, Jake Delhomme, and Donovan McNabb, so Brady really only has one Super Bowl victory in the mind of Skip Bayless.

to Peyton's one (over Rex Grossman?) while Eli has also led the NFL in interceptions three times, Greatest Regular-Season Quarterback must be starting to feel like a consolation prize.

And of course Peyton won his Super Bowl over Rex Grossman, who apparently was playing offense and defense, so this isn't an impressive Super Bowl victory. Nevermind that Manning had to beat Trent Green, Steve McNair, and Tom Brady on his way to winning that Super Bowl, that doesn't matter to Skip Bayless. Nevermind that Manning had to beat Philip Rivers and Tom Brady this year to make the Super Bowl, that probably doesn't matter to Skip. Only the opposing quarterback in the Super Bowl matters to him and none of the quarterbacks Manning beat on the way to the Super Bowl is impressive to Skip, mostly because Skip isn't capable of using logic through a complete line of thought without yelling. It's not like the 2006 Bears had a good defense or anything of course.

But now, the mouth of Seattle Seahawks cornerback Richard Sherman has opened and out has flown, like a fire-breathing dragon, the greatest opportunity Peyton could have ever wished for: a Super Bowl foe who's a nine out of 10 on degree-of-difficulty scale.

The 2013 Seattle Seahawks are 4th in the NFL in rushing yards per game, 26th in passing yards per game, 1st in passing yards allowed per game, and 7th in rushing yards allowed per game.

The 2006 Chicago Bears were 15th in rushing yards per game, 14th in passing yards per game, 11th in passing yards allowed per game, and 6th in rushing yards allowed per game. The Bears definitely weren't the 2013 Seahawks, but they weren't terrible either.

My point is that a Super Bowl victory is a Super Bowl victory and Skip Bayless will always find a reason to criticize Peyton Manning if he chooses to do so. Look no further than Skip criticizing LeBron James even after he has two NBA titles.

Peyton is about to throw into the teeth of the Legion of Boom. The '85 Bears mostly terrorized passers before they threw. Sherman & Co. more often make QBs and receivers pay after the ball has been thrown -- with interceptions and concussions.

But football is a team game. Peyton played terribly against the Seahawks, but his offensive line didn't help him, and quite frankly, that's the first game where I really saw his lack of arm strength has shown itself to be a liability. The Seahawks just beat the Broncos in every facet of the game. It wasn't a Peyton Manning-caused loss.

So, with Sherman relegating Peyton to Best Supporting Actor next week -- with the sports world hanging on Sherman's every word about how devastating Seattle's secondary can be -- the credibility of Peyton's challenge will rise by the sound bite.

To Skip's disappointment, Richard Sherman didn't give many good sound bites the week of the Super Bowl. I think Skip just doesn't like Peyton's legacy because he is angry Peyton took Tebow's job as the starting quarterback for the Broncos. Also, it is hilarious for Skip Bayless to question the legacy of Peyton Manning while still championing Tim Tebow as a viable NFL starter.

Yep: For Peyton, Seattle is a IX in Super Bowl degree of difficulty.

Yes, it was. That's why it's not fair to judge his legacy based solely on the outcome of this Super Bowl. The Seahawks have a historically great defense. Football is a team game and Manning can't block for himself, catch the football or make his arm any stronger at the age of 37.

For now, I rank him no higher on my all-time list than sixth, behind (in order) Joe Montana, Brady, John Elway, Roger Staubach and Brett Favre.

I'm not falling for this shitty trolling. Brett Favre has one Super Bowl ring in two tries. At least Peyton was better in the regular season than Favre and he has made one Super Bowl than Brett Favre made. I'm not falling for this trolling attempt and will not comment on it.

Until his two recent home wins over the San Diego Chargers and New England Patriots, Peyton had lost three straight playoff games. I'm sorry, but, by Peyton Manning standards, that's sorry.

Yes, his postseason record seems to be at odds with his regular season record. Is it really fair to hold Manning to his regular season standard when he is playing better teams consistently in the playoffs? Skip is essentially saying that Manning is ruining his legacy because he can't match his own regular season legacy. Couldn't the fact Manning doesn't live up to his standards in the regular season just serve as an example of how good Manning is in the regular season? Isn't this part of his legacy too?

But what if he added IX exclamation points to his regular-season record 55 touchdown passes and 5,477 passing yards by lowering the boom on the Legion of Boom in Super Bowl XLVIII and forcing Sherman to say Peyton made him look mediocre? What if Denver wins, say, 38-10 and DeMaryius catches three TD passes?

Then Peyton Manning would have had an outstanding regular season and capped it off with an outstanding Super Bowl. It didn't happen and the Seahawks offense made the Broncos offense look mediocre. Not all of this can be placed on Peyton Manning. He didn't fumble the football, he didn't snap the football over his own head on the first play of the game, and he didn't give up a touchdown return on the first play of the second half. Yes, he threw two interceptions, including one for a touchdown, but the Seattle defense was swarming. Sometimes you just get your ass kicked.

Good gracious, a few might even leap to the prisoner-of-the-moment conclusion that Peyton's sensational longevity capped off by the greatest regular season ever and a Super Bowl destruction of Sherman's defense pole-vaults Peyton past (dare I say) Montana.

I love how Skip accuses others of making a "prisoner-of-the-moment" conclusion when he is writing an entire column stating, "If Peyton Manning wins this Super Bowl then I will re-think his entire legacy." Skip Bayless sucks and he's a troll. He's so terrible and incompetent at writing, I almost feel sympathy for him. He talks about others leaping to conclusions after the Super Bowl, but he's willing to change his opinion about Peyton Manning had his Broncos won the Super Bowl over the Seahawks.

For sure, I would have to rethink Peyton's greatness.

But this is no "prisoner-of-the-moment" conclusion of course.

Peyton's increasingly happy feet made me happy when he struggled against my Commodores, and I lost more respect when he lost to Florida all three times he faced the Gators.

Well, at least Skip Bayless didn't make up his mind about Manning before he even entered the NFL. That's good to know.

I've been pretty good predicting the NFL success of college QBs -- with one glaring swing and miss: I said I would take Ryan Leaf over Peyton Manning. I was not alone. In fact, that was the first and last time I took to the bank what several college coaches told me: Leaf was a gunslinger who played quarterback like a linebacker and was made of tougher stuff than Peyton Manning. I obviously had no idea Leaf battled demons that soon would destroy his career.

So clearly it wasn't Skip's fault that he was wrong about Ryan Leaf. There were circumstances out of Skip's control. And also, Skip is wrong about Peyton Manning if he lost respect for Manning prior to Manning even playing in the NFL. Manning may excel in a timing-based offense with a lot of short throws (or it feels that way these days) and have a career losing playoff record, but he's one of the best quarterbacks in NFL history.

Then again, I must admit I've always preferred my all-time great quarterbacks to play with more rifle-armed flair than Peyton ever has.

The exception to this of course being Tim Tebow. He was more shotgun-armed. He threw the ball and it sort sprayed all over the field and would occasionally hit it's target.

From the start, Peyton played NFL quarterback as if he were a hyper chess master. He created a game above the mud-and-blood game of football, a mind game with which he could toy with superior athletes. His arm strength was pretty average, but his decision-making and release were speed of light and his accuracy deadly.

I always love how NFL guys seem to leave out Peyton's pocket awareness when describing his great abilities. Even in the Super Bowl, Peyton got rid of the ball (granted, a couple of times to the opposing team) as opposed to getting sacked.

Yet, despite all the weapons at his fingertips -- Marvin Harrison for 11 seasons, Reggie Wayne for 10, Dallas Clark for eight, Edgerrin James for seven -- those teams too often failed on the playoff stage against more physical teams that could turn the game back into football.

Manning hasn't always played with the best defenses either. Even this year's Broncos defense was missing their best pass rusher and cornerback in the Super Bowl. It's no excuse, but it's not a coincidence that Peyton Manning won a Super Bowl during the postseason when the Colts defense had a healthy Bob Sanders and stopped the opposing team from running the ball. 

Peyton finally broke through in his ninth season, beating the Bears 29-17 in the rain in Super Bowl XLI. Peyton's team was a seven-point favorite. Degree of difficulty: four.
 
But give Peyton this: The real Super Bowl that season was the AFC Championship Game in Indy, in which the Colts rallied from 21-6 down against New England to win 38-34. Peyton threw for 349 yards, with one touchdown pass and one interception.

I don't understand why "we" need to give Peyton that. Skip Bayless is the one writing the column stating that Peyton Manning's legacy needs help and that his Super Bowl victory over the Bears was a degree of difficulty of a four. Skip seems to be under the impression that his opinion of Peyton Manning reflects the reader's opinion of Peyton Manning.

Peyton's Colts, of course, lost Super Bowl XLIV to Drew Brees' New Orleans Saints 31-17 (after beating Mark Sanchez's New York Jets 30-17 in Indy for the AFC title).

I like how Skip says it is Mark Sanchez's Jets team as if Peyton putting up 30 points against the Jets #1 ranked defense doesn't mean as much because the opposing quarterback was Mark Sanchez. The fact Manning put up 30 points on a very good defense doesn't count in Skip's book because this didn't happen in the Super Bowl. Skip will always find a way to take credit away from those teams and athletes he simply doesn't like.

The Colts were a five-point favorite over a New Orleans team with the No. 1 offense but just the 25th-ranked defense. Degree of difficulty: five.

And these degree of difficulty rankings are not subjective at all. Also, if the Saints are a degree of difficulty of 5 for a #1 ranked offense and a #25 ranked defense then shouldn't a Super Bowl against a team with the #17 ranked offense and #1 ranked defense be a degree of difficulty of 7 or something, but not a 9? After all, it makes sense to bump the degree of difficulty up two numbers for a #1 ranked unit and a #17 ranked unit. Bumping the degree of difficulty up to a 9 doesn't make sense given Skip's own degree of difficulty rankings. I know, I know, I shouldn't use logic to argue with Skip Bayless.

Most memorable moment: The Colts were driving to tie the score at 24 when, with 3:24 left, Peyton's pass intended for Wayne was intercepted by Tracy Porter and returned 74 yards for the game-breaking TD. Hall of … Blame?

I'm not going to defend this pass from Peyton Manning, but why were the Colts driving down the field at this point in the game? Because they were running the ball really, really well? Actually, they didn't run the ball once on that drive. So Skip acts like the Colts were driving down the field and then Peyton had to step in and throw an interception. Manning was 5-7 for 44 yards on the drive until he threw the interception. Blaming him for the interception is fine, but wanting to act like the Colts were driving for any reason other than Manning's quarterbacking skill is not fine.

Last season, his first in Denver, Peyton did what Peyton often does, delivering the AFC's No. 1 seed off a 13-3 regular season. And Peyton did his part to build a 35-28 lead over eventual Super Bowl champ Baltimore. But, with 31 seconds left, a 70-yard Hail Flacco TD pass forced overtime.

And again, this wasn't Manning's fault. He was winning the game until the Denver defense had a brain fart and Rahim Moore let Jacoby Jones get behind him.

And in the second overtime, the Greatest Regular-Season Quarterback Ever made a shockingly poor decision, throwing a lifeless pass back across his body into the strength of the defense. That interception set up Baltimore's winning field goal.

It was a terrible throw at a terrible time. There was no excuse for that pass. To claim Manning underachieves in the playoffs one would have to ignore the fact that football is a team game and he had done his part to beat the Ravens in regulation. I'm not big on excuses, but when arguing about Manning's legacy there needs to be some perspective given to why Manning had to even throw a pass in overtime.

Reminder: Montana went 4-for-4 in Super Bowls and (I thought) deserved all four MVPs.

Reminder: Montana is considered the best Super Bowl quarterback of all-time, so comparing Peyton Manning to the best ever and saying he doesn't measure up merely acknowledges that Manning isn't the best quarterback in Super Bowl history. This is known. Manning's legacy isn't diminished simply because he isn't better in the Super Bowl than the best Super Bowl quarterback of all-time.

Jerry Rice (11 catches for 215 yards) was MVP of Super Bowl XXIII even though Montana threw for 357 yards, including the winning 10-yard TD pass with 34 seconds left.

And the fact Montana played with Jerry Rice, who is the greatest wide receiver in NFL history, had something to do with Montana's Super Bowl performances. Rice performed well in the Super Bowl as well, which obviously helped Montana go 4-for-4 in Super Bowls.

So, how much has Peyton rebuilt his legacy this postseason?

After the Super Bowl loss, it's the same old shit and the same old narrative.

And cold, hard fact: After the Patriots lost their Richard Sherman -- Aqib Talib -- four plays into the second quarter on what Bill Belichick basically called a Wes Welker cheap shot, Peyton should have won and did, 26-16.

Oh ok, so the Broncos should have won at that point in the game and so Manning doesn't get any credit from Skip Bayless for beating Tom Brady. Funny how that works isn't it? I said earlier that Skip was always going to find a way to not give Manning credit no matter what happens and this is proof of that. Skip states Manning hasn't ever beaten a really great team to win a Super Bowl, while ignoring the great quarterbacks Manning has beaten on his way to leading his team to the Super Bowl. But this AFC Championship victory over Tom Brady doesn't count because Aqib Talib got injured. Skip will always find a way to take away credit. He is always has a horseshit excuse.

Not only was Peyton unsacked in either home game, he was touched only once in each game. Seattle is tied for eighth in sacks.

Manning is good at avoiding being sacked, so going unsacked in both games prior to the Super Bowl wasn't simply the effect of him being the beneficiary of an outstanding offensive line. His pocket presence had something to do with his not being sacked as well. 

Big picture, Peyton at 37 hasn't received nearly enough credit for battling back from four neck procedures and not being able to throw a ball 10 yards. What a second act.

This is false. Peyton Manning was named MVP for the fifth time and was named "Sportsman of the Year" by Sports Illustrated. He's received plenty of credit for battling back from four neck surgeries.

And, Colts fans, I have not eased off my stance that your team made an all-time mistake easing Peyton out the back door in favor of Andrew Luck. Peyton just keeps putting his team in premium positions to make Super Bowl runs.

Skip Bayless is ridiculous in the positions he takes. He tells us that Peyton Manning is the greatest regular season quarterback of all-time, but he has a legacy of failure in the postseason. Along with the fact Manning is on the wrong side of 30, this would make a person think he liked the idea of the Colts releasing Manning and drafting Andrew Luck. But no, Skip doesn't like Peyton Manning enough to give him credit for playoff successes or take away some blame for playoff failures, but he likes Manning enough to think the Colts should have kept Manning over Andrew Luck. But of course. The problem is Bayless has ragged on Andrew Luck and he has to find a way to rectify his position that Manning is a playoff choker (and Manning is going to be 38 years old next year) while stating the Colts should have stuck with Manning over Luck. It's hard for him to do this.

Now Sherman's team has fallen from Super Bowl heaven into Peyton's path. Now, a week from Sunday, it could feel as if Peyton Manning wins two or three Super Bowls that night. I'll be rooting for him.

Even if Peyton Manning and the Broncos had won the Super Bowl, Skip Bayless would have eventually found a way to take away credit from Manning. One has to look no further than LeBron James and his two titles with the Heat to see that Skip Bayless opens his mouth crowing until he is proven wrong and then only opens his mouth to make horseshit excuses for being wrong.

2 comments Tim Tebow is Waiting for His Chance to be an NFL Quarterback While Wearing His Armor...Yep, That's the Semi-Title of this Article

Tim Tebow is not a starting quarterback in the NFL right now. Kevin Scholla thinks this is a travesty. So he writes about Tebow wearing armor (what is this the Crusades?) on the sidelines waiting his turn to be an NFL quarterback again. The author can't figure out why Tim Tebow isn't playing in the NFL. Maybe he should look in the mirror. Tebow's fans are part of the reason he isn't playing in the NFL. No NFL team wants to deal with the media attention and rabid fans of a quarterback who would be at-best a backup. It's simply not worth it to that team. So when wondering why Tebow doesn't have a job in the NFL as a quarterback (another issue is Tebow refuses to switch positions which either shows dedication to being a quarterback or is stupid and selfish of him) perhaps the author should look in the mirror. No team wants to deal with the Tebow circus and writers talking about Tebow wearing armor.

The quarterback carousel in Cleveland continues. Due to more injuries, the Browns have signed Caleb Hanie. They've also brought in Alex Tanney. All this while Brandon Weeden and Jason Campbell are both recovering from concussions. Earlier in the season, Cleveland lost Brian Hoyer to an ACL tear. The situation is a mess. Too bad the Browns still haven't pulled the trigger on the move that makes the most sense.

They have pulled the trigger on the move that makes the most sense. Waiting the season out, drafting a quarterback, and then keeping Hoyer around to be the backup or the starter at the beginning of next season. Boom, done.

Cleveland isn't the only club missing out. While team after team continues to pay inexperienced, below average, losing quarterbacks, Tim Tebow sits and waits.

Tebow waits for his chance to be an inexperienced, below average quarterback who is getting paid? He had the chance last year with the Jets and couldn't beat out Mark Sanchez for the job. Tebow hasn't started an NFL game at quarterback since the 2011 playoffs. Yes, he has an 8-6 career record so he's a "winning" quarterback, but Mark Sanchez has a 33-29 record as a quarterback so he's a "winner" too. There's more to being a good quarterback than just looking at the quarterback's record and deciding he's a "winner."

He is waiting, but he's not sitting around. Tebow is doing what he always does: visiting with and lifting the spirits of sick kids, raising money and awareness for charities,

This is irrelevant. Yes, Tim Tebow is a great guy who does many wonderful things. This doesn't make him a great quarterback. I know many, many good people who do great things for other people, but they are also not very good NFL quarterbacks. 

and training just in case someone in the NFL ever awakens from their media induced, peer pressured slumber.

Because we all know NFL teams only do what the media wants them to do. NFL teams will pass up chances to win games just to appease the media. Sure, that's what happens.

I can't help but chuckle at this guy writing about how the media has induced a peer pressure slumber. The media is who has propped Tebow up since he was playing college football at Florida. They have kept the myth of Tebow alive and given a forum to the rabid Tebow fans, while creating more Tebow fans. The idea this writer tries to sell us that the media is preventing Tebow from being an NFL starter is just hilarious. If Tebow wasn't such a good guy then the media would have hounded Tebow out of the NFL permanently by calling him a bust and tearing him down without a debate on Tebow's leadership skills. It's also ironic the writer makes this statement because the media's rabid fascination with Tebow is (in my opinion) a reason he doesn't have an NFL job right now. The media would love for Tebow to play for an NFL team, simply so they could write about Tebow. But yeah, the media is the one holding him down, I believe that.

Along with that less than stellar bunch of signal callers in Cleveland, the league is chock full of quarterbacks with less playoff wins than Tebow. 

Let's discuss the playoff win, shall we? The Broncos played a Steelers team in Denver that was missing their starting safety, starting running back, as well as had their starting quarterback injured. Ben Roethlisberger could barely move around in the pocket in that game due to an ankle injury. These aren't excuses, but merely facts that the Steelers were playing a road game with their best player's best attribute being diminished by an injury. It was a really good win for the Broncos in overtime and Tebow was 10-21 for 316 yards, but it also was a game where the Steelers weren't playing very well at that point in the season. 

It's always funny how the author doesn't mention the very next playoff game. It doesn't fit his narrative that shows Tebow as a winner. Tebow went 9-26 (which isn't bad if this were baseball) for 136 yards against the Patriots the very next week. Tebow was completely overmatched in that game by the Patriots defense. This game never gets mentioned when discussing Tebow whether is a winner in the playoffs. 

First, the quarterbacks with fewer postseason victories than the former Bronco and Jet:

Yes, the author is really doing this. He's saying that Tebow needs a job in the NFL because he has one playoff victory, then makes a list of other quarterbacks who don't have as many playoff victories as if this is a comparison that should make the reader believe Tebow isn't getting a fair shot. Of course the list sucks and is as misleading as possible in an effort to make it look like many other quarterbacks have gotten a shot to win a playoff game and couldn't succeed in the way Tebow did. I don't think Tebow would approve of the way the author misleads his readers. The author makes his list as long as possible to make the conspiracy to keep Tebow out of the NFL as vast as possible. There are quite a few quarterbacks who are injured reserve on this list as well. I'm going to skip the quarterbacks who have never even appeared in a playoff game, thereby not ever having the chance to show he can win one.

Matt Barkley

He's a rookie quarterback. Shouldn't be on the list. 

Tyler Bray 

Rookie quarterback.

Jimmy Clausen

He was released and zero teams claimed him, hence nobody wanted him, so he ended up back on the Panthers IR list. Clausen was unwanted, just like Tebow. 

Auston Davis

It's spelled "Austin Davis." 

Zac Dysert

Rookie quarterback. 

Mike Glennon

Rookie quarterback. 

EJ Manuel

Rookie quarterback.

Matt McGloin

Rookie quarterback.

Ryan Nassib

Rookie quarterback.

Certainly, there are some young guys on that list that clearly have a bright future and are more talented quarterbacks than Tebow (like Andrew Luck, Cam Newton, Matthew Stafford, Robert Griffin, III),

Yes, there are only four quarterbacks in the NFL more talented than Tebow on that list of quarterbacks who haven't won a playoff game. I could list at least 30 quarterbacks on that list who are more talented than Tim Tebow at playing quarterback. 

but for every Newton and Luck, there are multiple Renfrees, Stanzis, and Tuels. Can these clubs really say they are better off with these names than they would be with Tebow?

Considering these quarterbacks are all backups or third-string quarterbacks, then yes, these teams can say they are better off with these names than they would be with Tebow. Tebow brings too much scrutiny and attention for a third-string quarterback.

Along with that list of those who have not had any playoff success, Tebow is also on par with some big names when it comes to playoff wins.

This is an interesting little fact that Tebow has one playoff win like some current NFL starters, but this doesn't mean Tebow is a better quarterback than these NFL starters. It just means Tebow won a playoff game. He has a whole entire other resume, including another playoff game he participated in, that tells us what kind of quarterback Tebow truly is.

The southpaw has as many postseason victories as Tony Romo, Matt Ryan, Alex Smith, Jay Cutler, Matt Schaub, T.J. Yates, David Garrard, and everyone's darling Russell Wilson.

It's almost like more goes into being a great quarterback other than simply winning one playoff game. Also, Russell Wilson was a rookie last year and won a playoff game. It's not like he's been in the NFL for years and years.

The fact the author is basically arguing that Tim Tebow deserves an NFL job because he won one playoff game just like these other quarterbacks have won a single playoff game shows me he doesn't really have a firm grasp on quarterbacking in the NFL. It's a very basic and simplistic way of evaluating a quarterback's ability and quite possibly the best way to convince the casual NFL fan that Tebow that he is getting a raw deal from the NFL.

Yet, Tebow is jobless.

It's almost like winning one playoff game doesn't mean Tebow is a great quarterback. Also, I believe if Tebow was just a normal quarterback without a rabid following of fans that quote his volunteer and other good-guy activities without prompt from anyone at every opportunity then he would absolutely have an NFL job. The media attention (from the media the author seems to think doesn't like Tebow or wants to see him fail) is not worth the skills (or lack thereof) that Tebow brings to the team. Tebow is not good enough to justify the hype that will surround him.

While the Browns have just signed Hanie who has for his career thrown for only three touchdowns while being intercepted ten times and Tanney who has never attempted a pass in the NFL, Tebow is unsigned. This, despite 17 touchdowns and only nine picks, not to mention 989 rushing yards and 12 rushing touchdowns.

And again, articles like this which suggest Tebow wears armor, as well as the inevitable adoring media coverage of his every exploit is exactly why Tebow isn't signed. If the rabid Tebow fans and the media would calm the hell down then maybe Tebow would get another shot. As it stands, no NFL team wants the distraction of their backup quarterback being the topic of every question asked by a reporter. That's the reality. It's the same reality that occurs at everyone's job where there is one co-worker who does his/her job fairly well, but no one likes working with him/her because the other bullshit he/she does or says isn't worth it. He/She is high maintenance basically.

Plus, a successful win-loss record in the regular season and a playoff win.

Boy, the author is really hanging his hat on this isn't he? Mark Sanchez has a successful win-loss record in the regular season and multiple playoff wins. It doesn't make him a better quarterback. 

So why not Tebow? Because he doesn't throw "right"?

Well yes, partly. He doesn't throw the ball "right" and he sucks up attention away from the football team because the media adores him and his every move. The article I am writing about right now is part of the reason "why not Tebow." He brings a "C-" quarterbacking skill with the media attention of a teen idol to whatever team dares to draft him, trade for him or sign him.

Or is it the big, bad C-word? Tebow's Christianity--or the buzz that surrounds it--may be be the major factor in the NFL shunning him. C is Tebow's scarlet letter. 

Okay, make him a martyr. That will convince everyone that Tebow should be a quarterback in the NFL. It's not that Tebow is a Christian because other NFL players are devout Christians and the NFL doesn't shun them. Christian Ponder is a devout Christian, as is everyone's darling Russell Wilson, Prince Amukamara, Aaron Rodgers, Kurt Warner, Reggie White and Thomas Davis. The idea that Tim Tebow is being shunned for being a Christian is absolutely ridiculous to me. Making him a martyr is much more fun than acknowledging the rabid Tebow fans' impact on his not having a job in the NFL. It's easier to point the finger at others' actions than it is to look at your actions. 

Other Christian athletes are taking notice. Luke Murton has played five years of professional baseball. He finished up this year with the Sioux City Explorers after spending more than four seasons with the New York Yankees organization. Like Tebow, he is working hard every day to improve as a player. Also, like Tebow, Murton makes no apologies for his faith. 

Neither do other professional athletes and other professional athletes also publicize their faith. 

"I want my life to be a light to the world," Murton told Breitbart Sports. "I want people to look at me and see something different.  And not because I am special but because hopefully that will bring more people to Christ. Every Christian should be a missionary in the sense wherever you work that is your mission field. We need to be intentional about bringing others to Christ because we better than anyone know how much we need Christ. 

I'm sure the author thinks Luke Murton isn't in the majors yet because MLB is shunning him for daring to be a Christian. Such persecution should not stand. 

"The whole Tebow thing gets to me," Murton said. "Here you have a winner. He has always won but he doesn't throw "right" they say.

Some expert analysis here. 

Murton hasn't experienced any backlash on the level of Tebow, but he does stand out. Each and every at-bat Murton strides to the plate with Christian music blaring. Not your usual walk-up song for today's ball player. "Fans are used to songs that are "pumping up" the player walking to the plate, for instance, "the champ is here...the champ is here", said Murton.

Fans are used to Jadakiss, which of course is short for Jada Knights in Satan's Service. 

"I have heard people say that 'you are just trying to get hits." And that is the farthest thing from the truth. At the end of the day, I know I need a reminder of what really matters because I don't want to get caught up in something that eternally means nothing besides the lives we touch."

This is a good point, even though I have no idea what it is supposed to do with Tim Tebow and why he isn't playing quarterback in the NFL right now. 

Tebow continues to touch lives too. His foundation is currently working on helping typhoon victims in the Philippines and providing much needed funds and outreach for children with serious illnesses. Yet, Tebow can't touch a football in the NFL.

I see what you did there. Cleverness aside, possibly Tebow is better off touching lives outside of football since he seems to be able to make a difference through his foundation. The fact Tebow is a great person has zero to do with whether he should be an NFL quarterback or not. I can't emphasize this enough, though I have tried. 

Murton knows what Tebow knows. That's probably why Tebow can handle this blatant slight with such class and that patented Tebow smile.

I don't know if I would consider it a blatant slight any more than Tebow had a few chances to be a quarterback in the NFL and simply couldn't beat the guys ahead of him on the depth chart out for a roster spot. The fact Tebow has so much media and fan baggage certainly doesn't help his case to make an NFL roster though. He receives more attention than he is worth. 

So, until an NFL team wises up and issues some pads to #15, he'll be just fine wearing the armor of Jesus.

I mean...this...it's part of the problem. Not the Christianity aspect of Tebow, but the aspect where some of his fans write things like this. It's very off-putting and even a little fake. I call it fake because if the author has to tell us how great Tebow is doing without the NFL then that tells me Tebow isn't okay without being in the NFL. The author doth protest too much basically. If the author thinks Tebow doesn't give a shit about the NFL then why does he write columns saying Tebow is being shunned and why does Tebow admit he wants to play in the NFL again? Obviously Tebow is fine not playing in the NFL, but I'm not sure he's completely fine with it. I know Kevin Scholla isn't okay with it.

The Bible talks about the need to "focus on what is eternal and not seen." Tebow is doing his part. We wait and watch to find out if any team ever focuses and finally sees what they're missing out on.

The Patriots saw what they were missing out on with Tebow and released him. This was after the Jets kept Tebow on their roster for the entire 2012 season and still didn't choose to keep him around after the season despite Mark Sanchez's was struggles. I think Tebow's one playoff win may have been the peak of his career. NFL teams will give a chance to any player who can help them win games. It's a bottom-line business. The bottom line is Tim Tebow isn't good at being a quarterback to outweigh the circus that surrounds him and this helps to prevent him from getting another shot with an NFL team.

10 comments MMQB Review: Really Loud in Seattle Edition

Peter King summed up what he felt was a pretty uneventful Week 1 of the NFL season last week in MMQB. He reiterated that trading Anquan Boldin to the 49ers (which again, it was a tough decision, but Peter himself had written about the potential for the Ravens to purge veterans this past offseason so I'm confused as to why he was harping on the issue) wasn't the Ravens best offseason move, gave us a Quote of the Week that he admits probably isn't a Quote of the Week, and didn't mention Tavon Austin once. This week Peter talks about how loud the Seahawks crowd is, talks about how Johnny Manziel is so much like Tim Tebow, and reminds us all that it is early in the NFL season and too early to make certain conclusions, followed by Peter feeling certain about making conclusions about the NFL season so far. Peter loves to do this. He loves to remind his readers not to do something, followed by Peter doing the exact same thing he warned his readers against doing.

Thirty years of covering the NFL demands you have perspective after a night like last night. After all, it’s Week 2. Arizona won in Foxboro in Week 2 last year. Peyton Manning threw three interceptions in the first nine minutes in Week 2 last year. Strange things happen in September, before true patterns develop.

It's way too early to make any definitive statements. Everyone calm down and trust Peter's veteran sportswriting presence to tell us that Week 2 is way too early to determine what's going to happen. Just listen to Peter be reasonable and adjust your reactions.

But it’s hard not to wonder this about the NFC playoff race: If Seattle wins home-field advantage, what team is going into that cauldron of sound and fury, CenturyLink Field, and winning a football game?

Peter says "fuck it," he already has Seattle going 8-0 at home and if they win four road games, what's to stop them from making it to the Super Bowl? Nothing will stop the Seahawks. So true patterns haven't developed, but Peter is pretty sure the 2-0 Seahawks are going to make the Super Bowl based on their victories over the Panthers and 49ers.

San Francisco has been a hot mess in only one place since 2012 dawned—Seattle—and no one can tell me it doesn’t have a lot to do with the crowd.

A lot of teams are a hot mess when they come to Seattle. Also, Peter just wrote "a hot mess." I'm not sure if this is Peter King writing MMQB this week or a stereotypical sassy gay sidekick from a romantic comedy, but since the first paragraphs of the column consist of the writer telling everyone what not to do and then the writer doing the same thing he said no one else should do, it's safe to assume Peter King is writing this column and not a character based on Sean Hayes.

It was so loud, Seahawks safety Kam Chancellor told me, that the Seattle defense, which normally has an edge when the crowd is going nuts, had trouble hearing middle linebacker Bobby Wagner call the plays in the defensive huddle. The defense had to use hand signals for those who didn’t hear what Wagner was saying, even in a tight huddle. But it was still a huge edge for Seattle, because obviously it was impossible for Colin Kaepernick to communicate in any way but a non-verbal one.

This is as opposed to the hand signals the Seahawks defense had to use to communicate and hear what Bobby Wagner was saying, which apparently is a verbal way of communicating in Peter's opinion.

Probably the most amazing thing is the place was louder after the 60-minute weather delay, and after halftime: It got to 136.6 decibels in the third quarter, 16.6 decibels louder than the sound generated by a jet engine on an open runway.

It was very, very loud and this obviously had an effect on the 49ers. I mean, it had to have had an effect. Let's hear from Richard Sherman,

“It was electric,’’ cornerback Richard Sherman, the star of the show, told me from Seattle. “You could cut the energy in the stadium with a knife.

Hmmm...I think our Stanford-attending Richard Sherman is mixing his metaphors a little bit. I think it's silence that is supposed to be cut with a knife.

“This wasn’t the Super Bowl tonight,’’ said Sherman. “We haven’t won anything yet. We have to act like we’ve been here before. This was just another game, to tell you the truth.’’

You can cut Sherman's truthfulness with a knife.

Sherman went to his coaches to ask if he could shadow Anquan Boldin in certain schemes. Normally, Sherman is the left corner. Period. He moved around to shadow Buffalo’s Stevie Johnson some last season, but mostly he stays left. “The coaches said it was fine,’’ said Sherman. “Sunday night football, everybody is watching, so watch this. I had him when he was split out, when he was in the left slot, right slot. Didn’t matter.’’ Sherman covered Boldin on about 75 percent of the snaps. Last week the Niners receiver caught 12 balls for 208 yards. This week: one for seven yards.

And I really, really thank you Richard Sherman for sparing us another week of "The Anquan Boldin Chronicles" where Peter tries to figure out exactly why the Ravens traded Boldin for a sixth round pick.

“It makes me feel good—like I can execute a game plan the way it’s called,’’ Sherman said. “But no, I’m not surprised.”

Yeah, but we all know that Anquan Boldin is worth $6 million per year as the 12th highest paid wide receiver, getting paid more than Steve Smith, A.J. Green, Wes Welker, Jordy Nelson, Vincent Jackson, Hakeem Nicks and Julio Jones (granted Green, Nicks and Jones are still in their rookie contract seasons).

The Seahawks’ front never let Frank Gore breathe. San Francisco backs ran 11 times and gained 13 yards. They’d better figure a way to run it by the time of the rematch Dec. 8 in Candlestick.

Absolutely, they should figure out a way to run the football before December 8. Because the 49ers play no meaningful games before December 8 and the winner of the December 8 rematch between the Seahawks and 49ers will determine who wins the Super Bowl, if not the fate of humanity.

They know the truth, and the 49ers do too: If the road to the Super Bowl goes through Seattle, it’s going to be the biggest disadvantage in recent football history for the road team.

Yeah, possibly, but it's not like there are 14 other games left in the season to be played and there are other teams who could have a better record than the Seahawks even if they do end up with a better record than the 49ers.

Manziel, in his third year of eligibility at Texas A&M, could declare for the 2014 draft if he wants to come out, which seems likely. (He can also stay in and play the 2014 college season, and 2015 as well.) But Manziel, to many teams right now, would be undraftable because they’re scared of his mood swings and off-field questions.

Plus, Manziel tends to throw the ball up into traffic unnecessarily. So while sometimes this works, like it did once in the Alabama game on the fantastic play where he got away from approximately 29 Crimson Tide defenders to complete a prayer of a pass for a first down, it also can be a drawback when Manziel throws a stupid interception at a bad time, like he did in the Alabama game. He's like a shorter, more fame-driven Brett Favre (and calling someone more fame-driven than Brett Favre is saying a lot). All it takes is one team to think he is a future star and he will go in the first round.

But it only takes one team out of 32 to fall for him. And some team will, unless he self-destructs between today and draft day.

I just wrote that. I've watched Manziel play a few times and I would be much more worried about the risks he takes on the football field then his behavior off the football field if I were an NFL team. Scampering all over the field and then throwing a pass up for grabs works in college football, but it may not work so well in the NFL.

The MMQB’s Greg A. Bedard was in College Station Saturday, and he’ll report the Manziel story for us tomorrow. I can’t wait to read what he thinks of the kid, and what the pro football men in his rolodex think. As I said on NBC Sunday night, Browns assistant GM Ray Farmer scouted the game. Hmmmmmm. Johnny Dawg Pound!

That would be great if the Browns went from an extremely mature quarterback in Brandon Weeden to a quarterback that many scouts consider to be an extremely immature quarterback.

The NFC East does not. Most of us think the NFC’s a better conference, right? It’s not acting like it. The AFC was 4-0 in cross-conference games Sunday. The NFC East went 0-4, three of the losses coming to the supposedly weak AFC West: Denver over the Giants, San Diego over the Eagles, and Kansas City over Dallas.

And because the NFC East isn't very good then obviously the entire NFC conference can't be as good as "we" thought it was. After all, the NFC East is the only division that matters in the entire NFC.

My surprise team of the first eighth of the season? Miami (2-0).

But of course it is too early in Peter's opinion to draw any permanent conclusions on which teams are the real surprise of the 2013 season.

And did you notice Ryan Tannehill bested Luck Sunday?

No, but I noticed that the Dolphins as a team beat the Colts as a team.

Andy Reid is 2-0 too … and he returns to the scene of his prime Thursday night. “Listen, you know me,’’ he said over the phone from Arrowhead Sunday after the 17-16 win over Dallas. “I haven’t thought about that stuff. I don’t get caught up in it. All I know is it’s a short week and we’ve got to get ready to play on the road in a hurry.” Uh, come on. You’re returning to the place you coached 14 years. Thursday night. Prime time. E-A-G-L-E-S! EAGLES! Sound familiar?

How dare Andy Reid treat this like any other game and not feed into the hype of his return to Philadelphia! The NFL is no fun to watch if there can't be storylines that go along with the game being played.

Good for Mike McCoy, who thinks before he snaps. So the Chargers had a 21-point lead with 21 minutes to play Monday night and blew it, losing 31-28 to Houston. Same old Norvy Chargers, right? “I went back and watched the tape,’’ McCoy said Sunday from Philadelphia. “I tortured myself. I went back and forth over the plays we called, wondering what we should have done. In this business, you know every time a play doesn’t work, you say, ‘I should have called something else.’ And after I examined all those plays down the stretch, you know what? I wouldn’t change a single one. I have faith in my coaches and what we called. We just had to play better, and that’s what I told my team.”

So basically Mike McCoy is saying he didn't make any mistakes in his play-calling and the responsibility for the loss is totally on his players. I can buy how players need to take responsibility for their actions on the field, but a coach saying he wouldn't change a single play down the stretch doesn't sound like a coach I would want to play for.

"Oh no, I did everything right.  You guys just need to execute better," has quickly become Rivera-speak that actually means, "I don't know exactly what went wrong, the players should have won the game for us."

On Sunday, reclamation project Eddie Royal scored his third, fourth and fifth touchdowns of the season (Eddie Royal—he still plays?), Philip Rivers threw for 419 yards, and San Diego, on a short week, stunned the Eagles 33-30. Heck of a job preparing his team by McCoy.

But the Chargers won the next game, so clearly McCoy's strategy of doing everything perfectly and telling his players to execute better worked. Coach of the Year candidate?

The anatomy of a win. In Buffalo, coach Doug Marrone told E.J. Manuel at the two-minute warning of the fourth quarter, with Carolina up three and driving for an insurance field goal, that he was going to burn all three timeouts. “You’ll get the ball back, down six, with about 1:40 to go, and you’ll have to go the length of the field with no timeouts, okay?’’ Marrone told Manuel. His rookie quarterback was fine with that.

I'm guessing the conversation went more like this. "I'm going to burn all my timeouts. The defense will hold Carolina to a choice between a field goal attempt and going for it on fourth down. Ron Rivera will go for the field goal and then the Carolina defense will give up a touchdown. In fact, I'm not going to even call plays when you get the ball back on offense. Just do whatever the hell you want and draw plays in the grass. Trust me, we have this game won."

Here came the heavy rush. Two Carolina defenders messed up the coverage on Stevie Johnson, leaving him wide open. Touchdown. Buffalo wins, 24-23.

Actually one player, Josh Norman, messed up the coverage. He was told to switch off on his man by a teammate and Norman decided it would be best to ignore this. And of course Ron Rivera didn't want to use one of his timeouts in order to sort out this confusion or, you know, see what offensive set the Bills are showing and then adjust to that set forcing the Bills to call another play or stick with the one they have knowing Carolina has seen the formation. Doing any of those things would involve coaching which apparently Rivera doesn't believe is his job. His job is to motivate the players and then tell everyone after the game why the game was lost. 2-14 in games decided by seven points or less. It will be 2-20 before the end of this season at this rate.

Then Peter recommends a couple of books, because where else would be a good place to get a book recommendation?

The Fine Fifteen

Oh yes, NFL teams randomly placed in order of strength until 15 NFL teams have been listed.

2. Seattle (2-0).

4. New Orleans (2-0). Unimpressive win at Tampa Bay,

Because the Seahawks win at Carolina by five points was just so impressive the week before.

5. Miami (2-0). Excellent start for the Dolphins, with two road wins. Miami has had the best defense in football over the first two weeks, with nine sacks and foes completing just 53 percent of their passes.

The Dolphins beat the Browns. That's not incredibly impressive. I'm guessing much of this ranking is based on the Dolphins beating Andrew Luck (not the Colts team, but Andrew Luck) this past weekend. Either way, Peter is so impressed with Miami's 2-0 start he doesn't put either Indianapolis or Cleveland in his Fine Fifteen. So Peter is impressed that Miami beat two teams on the road that he doesn't think are average .

7. Chicago (2-0). Jay Cutler hung in after a bad interception. Matt Forte hung in after an ugly strip-fumble by the Vikes. This is an imperfect team, but the Bears play in an imperfect division.

This is as opposed to which NFC or AFC division that is perfect?

12. Green Bay (1-1). Amazing Aaron Dept.: Rodgers is averaging a 406-yard, 3.5-touchdown-pass day through two weeks. And he did his part of it Sunday after undergoing a massage/neck-maneuvering from club medics before the game.

If this were Brett Favre he would show post pictures of him getting the neck massage and then talk about how bad his neck hurts, but be very clear it would not affect his performance on the field, though his neck hurts like super-bad and he probably shouldn't be playing, but he will play because he's tough so please give him attention for how tough he is.

13. New England (2-0). Most advantageous opening schedule in recent league history: Two rookie quarterbacks to start—including Geno Smith having to go on the road in a short week—followed by a mini-bye (the Pats had the three-day weekend off) and a team with some civil war issues (Tampa Bay) coming up Sunday. In Foxboro.

So this isn't really a 2-0 record for New England, especially since the Patriots have been at full strength on offense for both of these games and all.

Offensive Players of the Week
 
James Jones, WR, Green Bay. The enjoyable thing about watching Jones play is that he’s not just a deep threat who runs all the vertical routes in the Packers playbook and juts out of bounds. He’s a physical receiver, and his 11-catch, 178-yard day—not exceeded by a Packer since 2004 (Javon Walker, 11 for 200 from Brett Favre) showed Jones as the complete receiver he’s become.

I like Jones, but he is 29 years old and has never had more than 784 yards receiving in a season. I think Peter is using the term "complete receiver" a bit loosely here. Also, this "complete receiver" had zero catches and zero targets against the 49ers defense in Week 1. Do "complete receivers" completely disappear against good teams?

Goat of the Week
 
Greg Schiano, head coach, Tampa Bay. The choice Schiano had to make with 70 seconds left in the fourth quarter and a 14-13lead over New Orleans, with a 4th-and-3 at the Saints’ 29, in a game in which neither team had any timeouts left: He could have punted and pinned Drew Brees at the, say, 10-yard line with 64 seconds left. Brees would have needed maybe 60 yards to get into Garrett Hartley field-goal range.

I can't believe I'm going to semi-defend Greg Schiano, here goes...

Peter is assuming this punt would be downed at the 10 yard line. If the punter kicks it into the end zone then the Buccaneers have netted 17 yards and Schiano has passed up the chance to put three more points on the board to gain seventeen extra yards. In fact, I think punting is the worst option here. The Buccaneers should have gone for it, kicked the field goal and then very, very last punted the ball.

Or he could have the August waiver signing from Buffalo, Rian Lindell, try a 47-yard field goal. If Lindell made it, the Saints would have had to drive for a touchdown to win the game. If Lindell missed it, the Saints would get the ball at their 37- and need 30 yards to be in field-goal range. Schiano decided to try the field goal. It was shanked. Brees went 54 yards, sweatlessly, to the winning chip-shot field goal as the clock expired. Bad decision by a coach under fire.

I agree, he should have gone for it on fourth down as opposed to letting the football get back into Drew Brees' hands. Punting doesn't seem like a great option to me in this situation.

“If we’re not starting fast, it’s my fault. Put that on my shoulders. I’ll take it. We’re not starting fast because of me.”

—Washington quarterback Robert Griffin III, and truer words this season have not yet been spoken. Griffin’s team has fallen behind in the first two games 33-7 after 32 minutes, and 31-7 after 38 minutes.

I guess after a season of building Robert Griffin up it's time to start tearing him down now. After all, it's his fault the Redskins defense has given up 30+ points after 30+ minutes in both games this season.

We will all debate now whether Johnny Manziel will be a good NFL quarterback. I feel strongly he’ll be playing on Sundays, almost certainly beginning in 2014 after the first NFL draft for which he’ll be eligible … of course, barring the kind of off-field immaturity Manziel has been sometimes known for while at Texas A&M.

I believe strongly that Manziel will be playing on Sundays also. All it takes is one team to like him enough to draft him. It's not exactly going out on a limb to say Manziel will probably be taken in the first round, especially since we've seen quarterbacks like Tim Tebow taken in the first round recently. All it takes is one team.

I may be damning Manziel with faint praise here, but stylistically as a college player, he has some things in common with Tim Tebow.

(Peter King reclining in his chair talking to himself with his dog Bailey at his feet on Sunday evening) "How can I slip a Tim Tebow reference into MMQB this week?"

(Bailey barks and whimpers because Peter is accidentally spilling a pumpkin latte on his head out of Peter's well-worn recyclable Starbucks cup)

(Peter King) "Great point, Bailey! I will compare Johnny Manziel to Tim Tebow since they are both white and both played quarterback at SEC universities. Nevermind Manziel is smaller than Tebow, has a more pure traditional motion, is a better passer, a completely different runner and really has nothing in common with Tebow. Let's go for it!"

Manziel can make people miss more, and he’s by any measure more accurate.

Other than his throwing style and running style, Manziel is the exact same quarterback as Tim Tebow!

But there is one thing they definitely don’t have in common: Tebow’s second game against ‘Bama, in the 2009 SEC title game, was mediocre; Manziel’s second game against Alabama, after the Tide worked all offseason to be ready to stop him, was a success—despite two turnovers. He threw for 211 more yards in his second game against Alabama than in his first.

Both players played Alabama more than once! Has anyone seen Tebow and Manziel in the same room at the same time? Are we sure they aren't the same person?

So basically these "things in common" that Manziel has with Tebow are exactly what I stated. They both white, mobile quarterbacks who played at SEC universities. 

You can say a 6-1, 210-pound quarterback (or whatever Manziel is) will have trouble lasting in NFL. He may. But it’d be because of his off-field nonsense, not what he’d do on the field, in my opinion. Just watch Russell Wilson. Watch a more pocketed Drew Brees. Small guys can play. Especially small guys who put the fear of God into Nick Saban.

At no point in this part of MMQB did Peter explain one thing that Tebow and Manziel have in common. At this point, I think it's fair to assume Peter is just simply mentioning Tebow out of habit or his analysis of Tebow being like Manziel is epically terrible.

“I would like to see Carroll and Harbaugh have a rage-off at midfield during halftime.”

—@ChrisWarcraft, author and former Vikes punter Chris Kluwe, watching Pete Carroll and Jim Harbaugh on the sidelines during the first half of Seahawks-Niners.

Chris Kluwe is so clever. His cleverness has shades of Tim Tebow.

1.  I think this is what I liked about Week 2:

These things that Peter likes have things in common with things that Tim Tebow likes.

a. The NFL Matchup Show on ESPN, which had this bit of prescience from Ron Jaworski Sunday on Washington quarterback Robert Griffin III: “His mechanics are flawed right now because of the injury.” Which is what Jon Gruden said during the Monday Night Football telecast in Week 1.

Did Jaworski ever decide whether Colin Kaepernick was the greatest quarterback in NFL history yet? I also imagine Gruden followed up his comment about Griffin's mechanics by saying,

"But, this guy...if I had to choose one NFL quarterback to start an NFL game then it would be Robert Griffin or any of the other quarterbacks currently on an NFL roster."

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

b. Geno Smith’s fourth-quarter efficiency.

Right, because Geno Smith should be efficient in his second career start with offensive weapons like he has. How dare he struggle in his second NFL game when surrounded by average NFL receivers against the team that played in the AFC Championship Game last year.

f. Corner route in Buffalo. Two seconds left. Game on the line. Stevie Johnson runs into the end zone and … no one covers him. One of the two Carolina defensive backs who both turned away from Johnson to cover the inside guy, Josh Norman or D.J. Moore, should wear the goat horns this morning in Charlotte. Huge, huge mistake.

Josh Norman is the one who didn't hear D.J. Moore tell him to switch off and cover Johnson. What a dumpster fire of incompetence.

3. I think Jacksonville’s the worst team in the league, and it’s not close. It’s taken only eight quarters to prove it definitively.

But again, it's too early to draw conclusions from just two weeks of NFL play. That is, unless Peter wants to draw conclusions, at which case he is free to ignore his own advice of having perspective after two weeks and start jumping to conclusions.

Then Peter publishes a letter from Robert Klemko's 79 year-old grandmother who doesn't like the NFL's clear bag rule. She promises she won't hurt anyone. Oh well, if people will just promise not to hurt anyone I guess there's no reason to keep the rule.

6. I think the good will of the Panthers’ 5-1 finish in 2012 has vanished. Cam Newton is 13-21 as a starting quarterback,

Very true and his head coach is 2-14 in games decided by seven points or less. Also, it was pretty obvious losing was going to happen this season because Ron Rivera is incompetent and has no chance of magically becoming competent. I hope for Cam's sake he chooses an organization better dedicated to helping him grow as a quarterback when he becomes a free agent in two years. Any chance he has of excelling is being wasted with Mike Shula as his offensive coordinator and Ron Rivera as his coach.

and the Panthers played it safe at the end of regulation in Buffalo, helping the Bills rally at the end.

After all, with a mobile quarterback who is 250 pounds what are the odds you can gain one yard on fourth down?

7. I think, in the wake of one of the most bizarre endings to a football game ever (Wisconsin-Arizona State, at 2 a.m. ET Sunday), I want to perform a public service for the Wisconsin coaching staff. Read this story from The MMQB in August. It centers on Arizona Cardinals coach Bruce Arians coaching the minutiae to his young players. Never assume your players know all the rules, or will execute them properly. And remember Arians’ words: “There are no little things. The little things are all big things.” The little things cost the Badgers a game when their quarterback, Joe Stave, placed a ball down on the field, thinking he was downing it in good position to kick a game-winning field goal. But it happened so fast—even though Stave had time to kneel and put the ball down properly—that the officials and Sun Devil players weren’t sure what happened, and some ASU players flopped on the ball as the clock continued to run, and expire.

I feel like that was on the officials. Stave made it very clear he had downed the ball and then officials refused to pull the Sun Devils players off the ball, call them for a delay of game or show any urgency in getting the ball reset. I don't know how Stave could have made his attempt to down the ball any clearer outside of downing the ball and holding up a sign saying, "I have downed the ball and would like it to be reset in a timely fashion."

Stave needed to make it clear he was kneeling down and giving himself up, and it happened so fast no one could tell what he was doing. You can blame the officials, who were indecisive, but Stave has to execute the play with enough time on the clock and set Wisconsin up for the field goal.

He did make it clear. It is up to the officials to reset the football and control the football game by not allowing the Arizona State players to flop on the ball. To me, this was all on the officials for not controlling the game.

Then Peter starts to explain that Greg Schiano doesn't have a personal conflict with Josh Freeman, but instead he has a performance conflict with Freeman. Okay, I guess that makes more sense. It's fun to go back and read Peter's MMQB from Week 1 of the 2012 season where he talks about how Schiano has gained the respect of the Bucs players. Less than a year later many of the players reportedly don't like Schiano. I guess they don't have a personal issue with Schiano, but their issues are performance-based. You know, the Tampa Bay players want to win games.

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

b. Saw something I’d never seen before, at any level of football: a timeout called at halftime. Well, almost. Army came out for the start of the third quarter, took the field, and the quarterback called a timeout.

So a timeout wasn't really called at halftime? So Peter didn't see something he had never seen before?

e. Can some doctor out there tell me why the University of Minnesota should keep Jerry Kill coaching football after his fourth seizure in three years on a Gopher game day? I don’t want to be insensitive. I’d really like to know if it makes sense to keep him on as coach.

Yeah, they should fire Kill after he had a seizure. That seems like the best possible move since Kill doesn't seem to want to retire or quit. Just fire him after he had a seizure. Brilliant.

h. C.C. Sabathia, 4.90 ERA. C.C. Sabathia, owed $96 million over the next four seasons.

If this were Dan Shaughnessy writing then he would say Sabathia can't handle the stress of playing in New York anymore and that explains his high ERA.

j. Helton hasn’t been great for five or six years, but he had a better career than you thought.

Thanks for telling me how great of a career I thought Helton had. I wasn't sure of my own thoughts, but now you have cleared them up for me.

Better career on-base percentage than Albert Pujols (.415 to .410), more hits than Mickey Mantle (2,505 to 2,415), more homers than Yogi Berra (367 to 358), more doubles than Tony Gwynn (585 to 543), better on-base-plus-slugging-percentage than Alex Rodriquez (.954 to .944),

Otherwise known as OPS.

and a better lifetime batting average than Derek Jeter (.317 to .312).

Better than the baseball player that Peter think is the best player of the last 25 years! That's amazing.

l. Coffeenerdness: One thing I don’t understand about baristas. I bring a re-useable grande cup into Starbucks and order a macchiato. Most often, the baristas take a short cup, line it up under the espresso filters, and push the button. The espresso flows into the cup, and the barista pours the espresso on top of the milk in the cup. Then the barista tosses the cup away. There are two other ways to do this—either by pouring the shots directly into the glass shot cups, or by having the shots flow directly into the cup filled two-thirds with milk. Instead, there’s a wasted paper cup. Time to issue a memo to baristas, Seattle.

God, you are an asshat for constantly telling people how to do their jobs. Maybe Starbucks insists the baristas do this. Maybe you could go purchase a machine that makes a macchiato and make your own coffee at home since Starbucks can't live up to your high standards. I hope the next time Peter goes into a Starbucks they use 10 cups to pour his coffee and then throw every single cup away in front of him.

o. I guess I have made a big mistake (my first). Never watched Breaking Bad. You know that feeling when everyone says you’ve got to watch a show, and you’re so far behind, and you throw your hands up in the air and say, “I’ll never catch up?” That’s me and Breaking Bad.

There are these things called "Blu-Ray's," or "DVD's" as is more likely the case for Peter. He can watch these DVD's/Blu-Ray's and catch up on episodes of "Breaking Bad," but I guess that's just absolutely out of the question.

The Adieu Haiku

Manziel strafes Saban.
Again. I see in Cleveland
Furrowed brows by Browns.

Good point, maybe the Browns should hire Nick Saban after they realize Rob Chudzinski is a better offensive coordinator than a head coach. 

1 comments Oh Poynter Review Project, We Hardly Knew Ye

It appears the Poynter Review Project for ESPN is now officially over. In some ways, it feels like it never really started. I'm not entirely sure what I expected, but when being an ombudsman for a 24/7 entertainment entity like ESPN any amount of coverage that isn't updated at the very minimum every week is going to feel insufficient to me. My opinion is bi-monthly discussions of ESPN's right steps and missteps is always going to feel like playing catchup to those who are eager to read these type of columns. ESPN is a train barreling down the tracks and while I understand it isn't the ombudsman job to stop or derail the train, standing by the side of the tracks screaming criticism as the train roars by seems pretty ineffective. By the time Poynter had discussed ESPN's fascination with Tim Tebow, it had been discussed in thousands of other forums and it was simply too late for their criticism to have an effect. Will ESPN review what Poynter says and then make changes accordingly? Possibly, but writing two posts a month about standards and practices issues at ESPN isn't effective to create the kind of change or tweak in ESPN's policies that may be needed. So Poynter has often come off as apologetic to ESPN and like the disappointed parent who can't change his unruly child's behavior.

A scene from "South Park" recently reminded me of the ESPN/Poynter relationship. For those who don't watch the show, in the latest episode "Obama Wins" Cartman was stealing (and then hiding) ballots in order to help President Obama win the election. When Cartman's mom was told by Cartman's friends that he was doing this she said something to the effect of, "Oh no, he's going to be grounded from watching television," and then she went about putting the groceries up. Clearly nothing was going to be done because she has no control over Cartman, but she continues the facade of being an actual parent.

My point is why does ESPN even have an ombudsman when it doesn't seem to take the ombudsman or the criticism seriously? Even Poynter in this very column admits they aren't exactly sure what ESPN has done with some of the feedback and criticism they have gotten. I'm not sure I believe ESPN has changed their editorial, sourcing, or any other policies based on Poynter's advice. Why should they? They are making a shit-ton of money and getting good ratings. The ombudsman is nice to have around in an effort to pretend they care, but the ombudsman doesn't write their columns but every two weeks or so, which means usually when an ESPN mis-step occurs they are playing catchup.

Anyway, so here is the final column by Poynter. I haven't heard word on who will replace Poynter, but it wouldn't shock me if ESPN either (a) went without an ombudsman for a while or (b) just hired another firm who will seemingly stay behind the news cycle.

After nearly 40 columns reviewing ESPN content across all platforms, we’ll close with lessons learned over 18 months of observing the network’s various media outlets, 

Think about that. "Nearly" 40 columns in 18 months. The actual count is 32 columns. If I missed other columns, then I apologize, but I don't think I did. I'm not sure how 32 columns becomes "nearly" 40, but that's not my point. How can they sufficiently be an ombudsman for an 24/7 entertainment entity by publishing a column every other week? That's one column for 336 hours of content across multiple networks. They will always be neglecting certain issues (Craig James) or playing catchup to where they can't affect change in ESPN policies. Often by the time Poynter has given feedback on policies or proceduers ESPN has probably "corrected the problem" internally. The columns by ESPN's ombudsman don't always feel timely to me. Even at 40 columns that comes to 2.2 columns per month and at 32 columns over 18 months that is 1.78 columns per month. I'm sure Poynter would classify this as "nearly" a column per week, which is the minimum volume I would like to see.

This is a relatively new phenomenon for ESPN and other media companies, and ESPNers are of two minds about the torrent of discussion, simultaneously appreciating being the center of so much conversation and worrying about a discourse they can’t control. 

And of course we all know how ESPN likes to control the discourse of a discussion. In fact, I would submit the ombudsman often doesn't do much in regard to creating discourse ESPN couldn't control. Poynter doesn't seem to have an idea of what change they have affected and when ESPN confronts an issue they will often handle it their own way. If the problem is out of the spotlight, it is considered corrected. Once a problem with standards and practices arose and Poynter came around to discussing it, then the news cycle was already on to another topic. ESPN asked for forgiveness not permission when a problem did arise.

We hope what we’ve learned will help readers and viewers understand ESPN better, so they can make more informed judgments -- whatever those judgments may be -- about the network’s decisions.

Perhaps to a certain extent Poynter has done this. Again, nobody knows because ESPN likes to stay so insulated.

ESPN’s television presence includes multiple channels -- ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNEWS, ESPN Classic, ESPN Deportes and ESPNU stand alongside the likes of the Longhorn Network, the broadband channel ESPN3 and the many flavors of ESPN International. The same could be said for ESPN’s digital operations: ESPN.com gets most of the attention, but there’s also espnW, Grantland, the quintet of powerful local city sites, and overseas, sport-specific outposts such as ESPNFC.com. And we haven’t even mentioned ESPN The Magazine, ESPN Radio, the company’s 30 for 30 documentaries or the unrelenting waves of information ESPN pushes out to mobile subscribers.

Why should readers and viewers keep this startling breadth in mind? Because we all fall into the trap of thinking about ESPN as a monolithic organization with a single point of view, mission and set of values.

The fact ESPN isn't a monolith only better goes to show my point that the company needs a more involved ombudsman than one that writes a column every other week. It is interesting how Poynter makes it clear ESPN doesn't have a single point of view, mission or set of values, yet the same content can be seen on 5-6 of these branches of the ESPN empire at the same time. You can hear about Tim Tebow/LeBron James on ESPN, read an article about them on ESPN.com, see the latest news on these players at ESPNEWS, read a printed article about one of them in ESPN The Magazine, and have a discussion about these players on ESPN Radio. So no, there isn't a single point of view, but magically these branches can all come together to saturate coverage of one topic.

It’s a big family, with different priorities and cultures, and most of the time ESPN maintains an uneasy balance between those competing entities. But sometimes they wind up working at cross-purposes or get eclipsed by each other.

Poynter seems to be arguing that getting eclipsed by each other or working at cross-purposes is a bad thing. I would argue these entities working at cross-purposes isn't entirely a bad thing.

And some of ESPN’s worst moments have come when things fall out of balance, as we would argue they did with Tebowmania

Here's the issue with this argument that things "fell out of balance" in this situation. Tebowmania is a situation where ESPN and it's various branches WEREN'T working at cross-purposes. This is when things were out of balance because there was balance across the competing entities. To argue ESPN entities working at cross-purposes is a bad thing would be to ignore that when ESPN entities aren't working at cross-purposes and working towards one goal, that's when the network can be at its worst. The reason entities need to eclipse each other is because when ESPN has an agenda, they tend to ram it down their viewer's throats.

Repetition is method as well as madness: If you watch large blocks of ESPN, you sometimes feel like you’re being cudgeled, subjected to the same stories and narratives over and over again with only the name of the show and the identities of the hosts changing. But here’s the thing: Most ESPN viewers don’t watch this way. 

I am not saying this isn't a true statement, but is there some sort of data that supports this contention? I don't have data that disproves this, but if the ombudsman does have data to prove it, then this would be a good time to include this data. If not, then this should be an opinion-based statement and not represented as a fact. 

Wall-to-wall ESPN watchers are outliers, with a very different experience from that of mainstream viewers. But they’re also the people most likely to tweet and blog about the company.

Again, what sort of evidence does Poynter have that shows this to be true? Any evidence those who watch more ESPN are more likely to Tweet and blog complaining about the company? Otherwise, again, this could be considered coming to a conclusion based on an opinion instead on fact.

This means vocal megafans (not to mention media critics and ombudsmen) have a big social-media footprint that considerably outweighs their value to ESPN as viewers. 

Sort of like how large entertainment entities and their coverage of a player or event can have a bigger social impact on that player or event than outweighs their value to the viewer? Good examples of this would be anything involving Tim Tebow, any LeBron James debate involving Skip Bayless and Brett Favre's late 2000's annual "to retire or not?" hostage situation.

So much like Poynter can't discount the input of megafans who watch ESPN all day, they can't discount the effect the saturation of overblown stories has on the viewers who watch ESPN either. This is true no matter how much a person watches ESPN. To say, "Well, these people just watch too much ESPN," is a cheap excuse in order to get around ESPN's overblown coverage of certain players and events.

That’s important to keep in mind when criticizing ESPN for putting a story in heavy rotation; the network’s strategy is designed to catch viewers who tune in for a single show or game, or drop in and out even within individual shows.

I can understand that, but isn't this the purpose of ESPNEWS or ESPN's Bottom Line? Isn't the purpose of constant rotating sports updates at bottom of the screen to ensure a viewer who comes in and out of a single show or game can get information quickly and easily? Shows like Around the Horn, Pardon the Interruption, First Take, and other shows like that repeat the same material that isn't necessarily informational nor breaking news. This claimed strategy to catch viewers in and out doesn't match with the intended purpose of these shows. ESPN already has the Bottom Line and ESPNEWS for those who want to quickly gain information. That's my issue. Those who watch Around the Horn or First Take probably aren't dropping in and out of the show, so the claim ESPN is using these shows for these individuals who want to drop in or out of a program falls short in my opinion. These so-called "debate shows" aren't informative, but are purely for entertainment. So a person wouldn't tune into hear Mike Wilbon and Tony Kornheiser break news about a topic, but would tune in to hear them discuss a previously reported topic.

I don't even have an issue with ESPN repeating stories, but do we need three or four shows that debate one topic during the day? The issue isn't the repeating of the stories, but the issue is what stories ESPN chooses to cover and saturate the airwaves with. Is it necessary to update what Tim Tebow is doing in Jets training camp or try to turn SportsCenter into a debate program? I don't think it is.

This is not to excuse ESPN’s excesses (again, we’re looking at you, Tebowmania).

But it is to sort of excuse it, because ESPN uses the reasoning that viewers want to hear about him, so that's why they have morning, afternoon, and evening debates, along with coverage of Tebow at Jets training camp. It's to make sure they catch those viewers who only tune into a single show or drop in/out of individual shows. This reasoning essentially can cover everything.

And it highlights the fact that ESPN’s reach gives it a critical responsibility as a news organization. Even in today’s universe of websites and blogs, lack of attention from ESPN can starve a story, and repetition by ESPN can amplify one until other stories feel crowded out.

This is true and goes without saying. Does ESPN understand or care about this critical responsibility? I'm not sure. In fact, in this column Poynter basically says, "you can't argue with ratings" and says this is why ESPN starves or amplifies a story. Viewers can vote with their remote, which while true, seemingly ignores the problems many viewers have with ESPN.

ESPN deserves criticism for its excesses, and it must remain aware of its power in creating and shaping the dominant narratives in sports news.

I'm sure the bi-monthly columns by Poynter have really shown ESPN the light. The simple fact is bi-monthly columns where Poynter aren't timely enough nor do they seem to serve a purpose other than to express mild criticism or try to explain what happened on behalf of ESPN. Perhaps that is the point of an ombudsman, not to do media criticism, but I don't believe an explanation of standards and practices does ESPN viewers much good without tangible evidence ESPN takes these standards and practices seriously.

We get the ESPN we deserve: With a few exceptions, during our tenure, we shied away from media criticism except where ESPN’s own standards and practices came into question. Media criticism wasn’t our job, and there’s no shortage of thoughtful critics keeping an eye on ESPN. 

I can understand this. When ESPN fires or suspends an employee for using a slur, but then allows another analyst/debate team member (Stephen A. Smith) to use a slur on-air twice, how is this explained to viewers? Not only did Smith not apologize either time, but the second time he was fairly standoff-ish about his insistence he didn't use that word. This comes as a surprise to the many who heard it when the word was aired live, when it was heard on video throughout the Internet, and when ESPN edited this word that Smith didn't say out of further First Take broadcasts. So I get media criticism isn't Poynter's job, but when there is a clear double standard in standards and practices I would expect the ombudsman to address it at some point. Poynter never commented on this topic, at least that I could find. That's very, very disappointing and if they are paid to be ESPN's ombudsman then the failure to comment on this story seems to be an obvious failure at their job.

And some of what they consistently decried came down to questions of taste -- which, ultimately, are questions about ratings.

I think many of the questions would also have to deal with the line between ESPN making news by how often and with how vigor they report on a story, and ESPN reporting on an existing story. A company as big as ESPN can turn a non-story into a huge story, thereby creating ratings for them. Tim Tebow may get good ratings for ESPN, but they have overblown the Tim Tebow story in an effort to chase ratings. Basically, is it a problem that ESPN will blow up certain stories in an effort to chase ratings? ESPN not only covers sports news, but they decide what is and is not sports news. So doesn't ESPN have an obligation to not saturate coverage on a story that isn't really pertinent sports news in favor of reporting on pertinent sports news?

We once called “Numbers Never Lie” a bait and switch -- a show that purports to be about advanced stats but is really just another venue for arguments about heart, momentum and other sports generalities. 

Smith’s comments at the conference fell along similar lines: He said that “Numbers Never Lie” began with different goals but “now is a debate show, like most other shows on ESPN. ... I hate to say it’s not about analytics, but it’s not about analytics.” 

This is just a misleading name for a show.

Unfortunate, but why did that happen? Because, Smith said, ESPN’s research found most viewers didn’t want to watch a show with statistics that had to be explained to them. We’ve heard similar things from other ESPNers; they like smart, dispassionate shows such as “Outside the Lines” as much as we do, but those shows don’t consistently pull in the ratings of, say, “First Take.” 

I understand the concept of ratings. ESPN is a business whose lifeblood is money. Ratings equal advertising dollars and advertising dollars equals profits. Television shows are on the air because they have good ratings and make money. Someone has to be watching these debate shows, just like someone has to be watching "Two and a Half Men" or purchasing Michael Bolton's albums. 

But such choices don’t amount to violations of ESPN’s standards. Yes, ESPN “plays the hits,” to use the expression we heard a number of times. But television is a hits-driven business. The real question might not be why we get so few shows such as OTL – it’s why we get such shows at all. If readers want such fare -- say, more “30 for 30” and less “Around the Horn” -- they need to vote with their remotes. 

It's our fault of course. Hey, there's nothing ESPN can do about this. They don't decide what shows are aired on their network.

It's simplistic to say viewers should vote with their remotes. The real issue is ESPN doesn't have any competition. That's the real issue. Once competition comes along then ESPN will no longer be the only game in town and will be forced to try and find shows which will woo the demographic they have lost to other networks. I personally rarely watch ESPN, outside of baseball or football games.

In ESPN’s early days, the forced insularity of Bristol life fostered a scrappy us-against-them attitude that was a big asset for ESPN, as well as creating a certain boys-will-be-boys cabin fever that the network came to regard as a problem.

After being forced to see this as a problem by female ESPN employees who were being harassed. Let's not pretend ESPN was leading the charge at finding the boys-will-be-boys fever as an issue. They were forced to see it as an issue.

But some prominent ESPNers date back to that era, and both those times and Bristol continue to shape how they see the world.

We don’t want to overdo the psychoanalysis on this point, but it’s a mindset we think is worth keeping in mind when trying to assess ESPN’s decisions, particularly how it reacts to outside criticism. 

This is irrelevant. Everyone else lives outside of Bristol, Connecticut. The fact ESPN has an insulated environment is not an excuse or reason to explain away the mindset that takes hold. The world moves on and exists outside of Bristol and the "Bristol mindset," which sounds like a convenient excuse, makes it seem like these employees have never been outside of the city when this isn't true.

The numbers game: In a given year, more than 1,000 content contributors -- anchors, reporters, columnists and analysts – provide coverage across ESPN properties. If you count guests who call in or contribute via satellite on breaking news stories, the number tops 5,000. Most of its entities are open 24 hours a day, seven days a week. ESPN.com says it posts more than 800 new content items a day. 

And yet, the ombudsman writes one column every other week.

Yes, ESPN makes mistakes every day, mistakes of commission and of omission. But given the amount of content ESPN produces, daily mistakes are neither surprising nor necessarily alarming.

Again, the issue isn't the mistake in and of itself, but the amount of sweeping under the rug and lack of humility the company can show at times. Bruce Feldman is given permission to write a book with Mike Leach and then gets suspended for writing a book with Mike Leach. Stephen A. Smith uses a slur on air and then gets indignant in his "apology" that we thought he used that word, even though he clearly did.

Another major issue is sourcing issues. Poynter did a column on this, but I found the explanation given by ESPN to be wholly unhelpful to prevent further issues of sourcing in the future. In reality, the issue of sourcing in regard to ESPN has not stopped. Rick Reilly grabs credit for a scoop about Ben Roethlisberger's injury even though he wasn't the one who reported on the injury. These are the types of things that happened after Poynter wrote their "sourcing" column and will continue to happen. Presumably because ESPN just doesn't care. Reilly made it a point to claim he was the first one on a story when it wasn't true and he was never corrected nor was the mistake acknowledged. I find it hard to believe the "sourcing" column was taken to heart by ESPN.

Jay Glazer then further reported on Roethlisberger's injury and SportsCenter attributed this story to "sources." To make matters worse, ESPN had previously given Glazer credit on ESPN.com and then later removed Fox Sports as being the first to report the story. So ESPN steals Glazer's report and files it under "sources," then replaces what was the correct sourcing on their web site to Fox Sports with "sources." Throw in an interview with a soccer player this summer that never actually occurred (ESPN said it was done by a freelancer, thereby absolving them of any wrongdoing of course) and the whole Sarah Phillips disaster, to where the problem isn't the mistakes but the hubris with which ESPN refuses to admit wrongdoing and correct these mistakes in the future.

Are slips of the tongue treated differently when anchors relatively low on the totem pole make them, compared with what happens to high-profile personalities?

If Poynter had taken the time during one of their bi-monthly columns to cover this story, then yes, they would find out slips of the tongue seem to be treated differently.

It’s hard to judge because ESPN rarely reveals the internal changes it makes in response to external criticism. Often we heard privately that policies were being revised and training was being implemented.

What's the point of an ombudsman if even the ombudsman has no idea if changes are being made? I know the answer to this question, but the fact ESPN shells out thousands of dollars to pretend to care about standards and practices only annoys me further at their hubris. We don't need heads on sticks, but if the ombudsman has no idea if changes were implemented, then how can ESPN's viewers feel comfortable the same issue(s) won't arise again?

The big picture: ESPN’s critics seize on every mistake, which can make the company’s editors, producers and PR folks defensive at times. That’s understandable; it’s not easy waking up each morning knowing you’re a big target. 

(the world's tiniest violin plays for this billion dollar company)

Media analyst SNL Kagan estimates ESPN will make $8.2 billion in revenue this year. It controls the rights to a huge range of live sports, using that content as fuel for its sports-information engine.

While ignoring the sports they don't have the rights to. That's why each SportsCenter doesn't have NHL lockout coverage in the first ten minutes and why when the NBA lockout occurred if David Stern farted too loudly then it warranted courthouse step coverage.

At its best, ESPN’s reporting is thorough and uncompromising about matters of great concern to its business partners: Take its recent series on football concussions, or the throw-the-script-away “SportsCenter” that followed the debacle of an NFL replacement ref’s blown call that cost Green Bay a victory in Seattle. Both storylines served fans and undermined the business interests of the NFL. 

Both times ESPN got credit for doing this from viewers. The off-the-cuff SportsCenter, as well as the reaction from Jon Gruden and Mike Tirico was a breath of fresh air to many fans. It removed many of the barriers and canned opinions from the broadcast and felt like ESPN was actually covering the story as opposed to framing the story in a way to draw ratings.

ESPN can’t be an observer or bystander because its mere presence changes things. This is true not just in business but also in journalism: As noted earlier, if ESPN covers a story, it becomes big news; if it ignores it, often it withers.

Hence the difficulty I have with accepting the "vote with your remote" and "we market towards the fan who only watches one show" reasoning they use for saturating their stations with coverage of one story. ESPN knows they can create or destroy a story, so by saturating their coverage with one story they are determining how big of a story it becomes.

But occasionally, as happened in the wake of the grand jury indictment against former Penn State assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky, the rest of the world overrules ESPN’s judgment and the network must reverse course and pursue a story it originally treated lightly. 

Because at the time, accusations of multiple counts of child abuse wasn't nearly as important of a story as how well Tim Tebow was performing for the Broncos. 

we need journalists such as ESPN’s -- and they, in turn, need standards and practices that are clearly and wisely defined, and faithfully followed. 

But who is going to stop ESPN if they don't do this? Is the next ombudsman going to write a column three weeks after an issue occurs or completely ignore that issue (Craig James, Stephen A. Smith)? Mistakes happen and no one has to be burned at the stake as the result of the mistake, but when mistakes do occur it would help if ESPN acknowledged these mistakes. Maybe once ESPN figures out how to make money or get ratings from admitting mistakes they would will be more inclined to do so.