Peter astounded "us" last week with the news the Patriots weren't simply going to lose the rest of the games during this NFL season and try to get a new franchise quarterback in the 2015 draft. "We" were wrong about the Patriots struggling the rest of the season because they started off the season struggling. Peter also revealed THE MMQB will be covering one of the Thanksgiving games this year, which should be a lot of fun apparently, though I assumed THE MMQB would be covering these games anyway. I guess it's more fun to saturate coverage of one specific game. This week Peter says that "we" shouldn't count out the Cardinals, the rise of the Lions (I'm going to admit I was wrong about Caldwell at some point...I will probably give it two years, so don't worry, I'm on it but I'm also aware that Caldwell has had success with someone else's players before), and still has nothing to say about Matt Schaub sitting the Raiders' bench while collecting a paycheck of $8 million, though he killed Josh Freeman for doing that same thing last year (in terms of the most bizarre things Peter has ever done, eviscerating Freeman on a weekly basis when he earned $2 million over one season as the Vikings' third QB has to be among them). Also, it's good of Peter to help Greg Schiano "prepare for his next job." Nothing like using his website to do a little PR for his buddies. How shameless.
I want to warn everyone this MMQB contains the sentence, "We can win the Super Bowl with Drew Stanton," so the bar for crazy and delusional has been set high. And what do you know? Carson Palmer gets paid and then gets injured. That never happens.
An early Happy Veterans Day to all in uniform, past and present. Thanks
to all in the military who make it possible for us to enjoy the lives we
lead and feel safe while doing it.
If these veterans knew they were making it safe for Peter to complain about things like bad coffee and people who are taking pictures outside of the Apple store then they would probably quit doing those things to make it safer.
Every NFL season has its eccentricities.
BREAKING NEWS!
Ten Uniquely 2014 Things About Week 10
1. Cleveland is in sole possession of first place in the AFC North. Last
time that was the case after 10 weeks: In 1994, when Bill Belichick
coached and Vinny Testaverde quarterbacked.
What was Greg Schiano doing at that point? I know you want to tell us, Peter.
2. Brian Hoyer’s agent, Joe Linta, told me Sunday he hasn’t had any
discussions about a new contract for the 2015 free-agent-to-be since May. Six months. Hoyer is the most desirable veteran quarterback among a weak crop.
He's the best of the worst! Quick, overpay for him! There are few great quarterbacks available and the Browns MUST overpay to keep Hoyer around.
There is time for Hoyer to fall to earth, of course, but I’ll be amazed
if the Browns, seeking a long-term answer at quarterback since forever,
let him walk.
Okay, I don't know if I would be amazed since Hoyer doesn't have a long track record of this type of great performance and the Browns have Johnny Manziel sitting on the bench. It would be surprising, but "amazed"? Small things amaze Peter.
4. If the season ended this morning, Green Bay (6-3) wouldn’t be in the
playoffs. True fact. Detroit (7-2) has them beat for the division, and
Dallas (7-3) and Seattle (6-3 with the head-to-head tiebreaker over
Green Bay) would be wild cards.
Wait, Seattle would make the playoffs if the season ended today? I thought their eulogy was written a few weeks ago?
I knew this would happen. Peter didn't bury the Seahawks but he did write previously about how they were in trouble, blah, blah, blah, as if their opening schedule wasn't difficult or anything.
10. As if anyone needed another lesson, gambling on football is fool’s
gold; the Steelers looked like the ’07 Patriots the last two weeks and
came to the Meadowlands to play a team on an eight-game losing
streak—and Pittsburgh got drilled. We wake this morning to learn the
2014 Patriots, nearly flawless the past five games, are field-goal ‘dogs
at Indianapolis Sunday night. Keep your money in your pocket. I repeat,
keep your money in your pocket.
I'm not even sure I know what this means in terms of gambling advice Peter is giving.
It seems particularly cruel this morning to write about the team with
the best record in football in a life-goes-on sort of way. Carson Palmer
was the quarterback coach Bruce Arians and GM Steve Keim chose to be
their franchise leader when they got their jobs in January 2013. Palmer
finally felt like he was in football nirvana. He quit football at 31
rather than continue playing for a franchise he didn’t trust to put a
winner on the field, Cincinnati.
Which, for the record, is something the media would have KILLED other players for doing. Palmer is a quarterback, white (not that important, but I believe it plays a part), friendly with the media and just overall is a nice guy. He got a break in terms of the criticism he received for essentially refusing to play. No big deal, but it would be funny if another player tried to pull this trick. Let's see how Andre Johnson would have gotten treated if he sat out refusing to play. Now the irony is that the Bengals have put a winner on the field without Palmer and the biggest question mark is starting to look like the starting quarterback's performance.
He was traded to the Raiders, another pit of despair, and played two years there.
And of course because he wanted to go to a team committed to winning, he ended up with the Raiders.
As the play progressed, Palmer’s left knee caved in as he tried to
avoid the rush on a sack, and he lay on the field, writhing in agony.
Nothing is official, and Arians told me Sunday night he wasn’t sure of
anything, but all signs point to a torn ACL in Palmer’s left knee, the
second time he has suffered that injury, to that knee, in his career.
“We just did the contract, and everybody was on cloud nine,” Arians said from Arizona. “Now this.”
It always happens like that, doesn't it? Though I do have to wonder why the Cardinals signed Palmer to that contract if Bruce Arians feels he can win a Super Bowl with Drew Stanton. Kind of a fishy claim if you ask me. Why re-sign Palmer to that type of money if he really thinks he can win a Super Bowl with Drew Stanton? When Peter was speaking to Arians and Arians made this statement, naturally Peter being the crack reporter he is reports this statement as fact, rather than ask the obvious question. Peter is less reporter, more transcriber/lackey. The obvious question here would be why the Cardinals handed Palmer a contract extension if Arians thought he could win a Super Bowl with Drew Stanton? The answer? Arians is just saying this to be confident in his guy, yet Peter reports on it like this is realistically something Arians believes, which I can't imagine it would be.
This was the second bit of major drama in Stanton’s day. He and his
wife, Kristin, are expecting a child. She was due last Wednesday. He got
a text from her Sunday morning, when he’d arrived at the stadium for
the game. “The text basically said, Just so you know, you might want to get home pretty quick after the game. She felt like the contractions were coming,” Stanton said.
This was an hour or so after the game, and Stanton had ducked into a
Whole Foods on his way home, shopping for dinner. And champagne, in case
the baby came.
That's terrible. Drew Stanton is going to give champagne to a newborn baby? What about a stuffed animal or a pacifier instead?
So even though Stanton was shaken to the core by the injury to Palmer,
he listened to Arians before he went out for his first play,
first-and-10 at the Arizona 11. We’re gonna stay with what we planned. Just try to put some points on the board. Nothing different from what Arians would have said to anyone subbing for an injured player.
So the Cardinals' offense was going to continue to try and score points? I don't know, that's a risky move.
“It’s not gonna stop,” Arians said. “It’s football. There’s gonna be
another one, I just don’t know who and when. That’s what we believe. We
don’t let up, and we don’t make excuses.”
One more thing.
Here it comes.
“We can win the Super Bowl with Drew Stanton,” Arians said. “There is no doubt in my mind.”
I realize this is coach-speak. I do. Peter reports this as fact and doesn't at least point out that Bruce Arians and Steve Keim were so sure they could win a Super Bowl with Drew Stanton that they gave Carson Palmer a three year extension two days earlier rather than hand the team over to Drew Stanton, who obviously would cost less than Palmer, when Palmer's contract ran out. My point is there is an easy follow-up question, but Peter doesn't care to ask a follow-up question because he thinks coach-speak is just a great way to get a quote. Again, he's not a reporter, he just transcribes what coaches say and then marvels at their brilliance.
There will be a few people in the Cardinals’ offices today pulling for
Kristin Stanton to have that baby early in the week. Her husband’s got
another big job this week. The football calendar is unforgiving that
way.
Drew Stanton will be the first husband to ever have his baby's birth get in the way of something he has to do at work. I don't know how he does it.
The Lions don’t make the dumb mistakes anymore.
This just isn't entirely true. This is a very definitive statement. Remember last year when Peter wrote that Matthew Stafford had matured after sneaking the ball over the goal line against the Cowboys? He was a different QB after that! Except he wasn't, but the Lions are TOTALLY different now. For sure.
For the third straight game, the Lions won a game they’d trailed late in
the fourth quarter. And that, players and staff say, is a direct result
of some of the mind games new coach Jim Caldwell is playing.
And these mind games are wonderful because the Lions are winning. That's all that matters. The rest is a bullshit narrative written around the fact the Lions are winning. The mind games will suck if the Lions start off 1-5 next season.
Caldwell might be one of those rarities in the NFL—a coach who is better-suited to be a head coach than a coordinator.
No, I still don't think he is.
Detroit led in the fourth quarter of its last seven games last
season—and won one. This year, the Lions are turning it over less (last
nine games last year: 26 turnovers; first nine games this year: 12
turnovers) and winning more.
See the narrative being written around the Lions? The Lions played well enough to win games last year, but couldn't close them out. This year, the Lions are winning the close games and turning the ball over less. Sure, one might think this has to do with some luck, good execution and not turning the ball over. But no, it's totally Jim Caldwell and his mind games.
Caldwell said from his office the other day. “In this league, we see it
every year: Teams lose games in the NFL more than they win them. We
brought in players and coaches from winning backgrounds—James Ihedigbo
and Glover Quin [from Houston], Golden Tate from Seattle, [coordinators]
Joe Lombardi from the Saints and Teryl Austin from the Ravens.”
This is a good strategy. Still, a team winning games they lead in the fourth quarter can be chalked up to other things outside of just bringing players from winning backgrounds. It's not narrative-driven enough to just say the Lions are winning the close games this year that they couldn't win last year and part of the reason is they aren't turning the ball over as much.
Caldwell introduced a twice-weekly part of team meetings: The High Cost
of Low Living. Each meeting, he’d have an example, culled from the
internet or newspaper by longtime senior VP of communications Bill
Keenist or someone else on staff, of an athlete or famous person being
arrested or doing something stupid publicly. “Common-sense lessons,”
said Caldwell. “Like, ‘Don’t be out after 1 a.m.’
The Lions are winning the close games and not turning the ball over because they see examples of players who get in trouble or arrested. If you want to believe, that sounds great. To me, I don't see how these mind games are winning games for the Lions.
“I just think discipline is important,” he said. “It shows up in games.”
Jim Caldwell and I agree. I also think that discipline isn't the only reason the Lions are winning the same close games this year that they lost last year.
Caldwell also took all positions groups out to dinner, one a week,
during the offseason. He’d let the players pick the restaurants, then
spend two to three hours getting to know them. “Their favorite movies,
their favorite book, their families. I’d ask them, ‘Who’s the best point
guard in the NBA?’ We’d get some great discussions going. Just to get
to know the players as men, as people, is so important. I read a lot,
and I always have believed something General Patton says is important:
‘Take care of your men.’ ”
And if/when the Lions start losing then these dinners will become tedious and an example of how Caldwell is a great guy who does a better job of taking care of his men then he does of winning football games. It's how the reverse-narrative sausage works. Winning rules all. Everything is great when a team is winning.
Those are traits these Lions are playing with now. We’ll see if they
last for the long haul. Last season, Detroit was 6-2 after eight games
and it didn’t last. The proof with Caldwell will be known in a couple of
months.
No, like every other head coach, the proof with Caldwell will be known in a couple of years. Plenty of head coaches have succeeded in their first year with a team. Sustaining that success is what separates the good coaches from the average coaches.
Peter King does love his coach-speak and feel-good, team-first stories though doesn't he? He eats them up.
Five quick questions, five quick answers…
With Chris Simms, the former quarterback and NFL quality-control coach, now analyzing the NFL for Bleacher Report
and CBS Sports. I reached out because I’ve liked his direct, blunt
analysis this season. He said, for instance, that the Eagles may be
better off with Mark Sanchez than Nick Foles; and when the Jets’
quarterbacks were struggling mightily, he said he didn’t think his
brother, Matt, the third-stringer with the team, should be playing over
Michael Vick.
Chris Simms shoots straight from the hip. Peter loves guys like that. Of course he also likes guys who mix hyperbole and coach-speak together to essentially say nothing and he likes coaches who essentially lie to his face, and also likes what most people tell him, unless it's about Josh Freeman who can burn in Hell.
The MMQB: Why the media gig?
Whoa Peter, you only have five questions. Don't go so hard on the first question.
"What's it like to be a Simms?"
"If the world were a violet or a daisy, which would you prefer?"
"You have blonde hair, right? How neat is that?"
Simms: I wanted to get into coaching or get on the track to be a GM. But for the last three years, I was basically a bitch boy,
Only over the last three years? Major Applewhite would argue differently. But to be clear, Chris Simms wasn't no bitch boy then and never will be now.
Like my dad [Phil] told me, “If you’re going to do this, you can’t fake
it.” So I put in the work. I watch the tape. I talk to people I know in
the league. I really work at it.
Interesting that "You can't fake it" came from Phil Simms since it's fairly well-known that Simms required a lot of work to get his broadcasting skills to where they are today, work done even after he had hit the air doing analysis for games...including changing his hair style around.
The MMQB: How did you like working for Bill Belichick?
Simms: Loved it. He’s the smartest person I’ve ever been
around. His attention to detail just blows me away. What I noticed about
him is that the grind of coaching is not a grind to him.
But does Belichick schedule dinner dates with his players? If not, he's dropping the ball to know them as men.
Again with Peter King asking the tough questions though.
The MMQB: Best player in the league we don’t know yet.
Simms: [Oakland linebacker] Khalil Mack. He’ll be a superstar for a long time. He’s Von Miller-esque.
Very Simms-esque answer.
The MMQB: Ever wonder what would have happened to you if you
didn’t rupture your spleen in that game? [Simms suffered a rupture
spleen in a 2006 game against Carolina, and started only one game the
rest of his career. He retired in 2009, at age 29.]
No Peter, I bet he has never thought about the injury that seemed to ruin his career. It's never crossed his mind I bet.
Simms: Never a week goes by that I don’t wonder about that. The injury ruined my career.
I think some might argue that having the last name "Simms" helped to make your career a little bit. So there's a bit of a trade-off.
The Niners save their season, and need to play more like Chris Borland.
Considering Chris Borland currently plays for the Niners, just shut up about this.
“Just a little dumb luck,’’ said linebacker Chris Borland, after he
recovered a fumble in overtime and Phil Dawson followed with a
game-winning field goal in New Orleans. There’s some truth to what
Borland says, but to see how he attacked the loose ball, swan-diving in
from five feet away, no regard for his own health, is a good lesson for
the seasoned pros on the Niners who might not be playing the same sense
of desperation. “I didn’t give it a lot of thought,’’ Borland said. “I
just reacted. That’s the game right there, that ball on the ground.”
It was embarrassing when no other Niners players attempted to recover the fumble here. I remember earlier in the game when Perrish Cox saw a fumbled football and pulled a cigarette out of his pocket and lit it WHILE THE BALL WAS JUST LAYING ON THE GROUND! Just play more like Chris Borland, 49ers defense that Borland is a member of.
The Fine Fifteen
2. Arizona (8-1). Game of Week 11: Detroit (7-2) at
Arizona (8-1). Seems the Cards play one of these prove-it games every
two or three weeks. Even without Carson Palmer, this just looks like
Arizona’s year.
I don't know if the Cardinals have totally gotten the Drew Stanton experience yet. We'll see. Let's just say I am not as confident as Bruce Arians the Cardinals can win a Super Bowl with Drew Stanton as their starting quarterback.
6. Indianapolis (6-3). Worked out well that the NFL gave the Patriots and Colts the Week 10 bye and a Week 11 meeting. Competitive fairness.
I would certainly hope the NFL didn't specifically give these two teams a week off in preparation for them facing each other. Other NFL teams who also have to play competitive games not off of a bye week would probably be miffed otherwise.
8. Detroit (7-2). Lions have won the past three by 1, 1
and 4 points. I say last year’s Lions would have lost two of those. “We
don’t think about that,” Matthew Stafford told me after the tight win
over Miami. I do.
It's those dinners and mind games I tell you. It's not just that the Lions are winning the close games they lost last year.
10. Seattle (6-3). I don’t want to deflate any win by
any NFL team, and I don’t mean to make light of the Giants’ defensive
backfield Sunday at CenturyLink Field, but I do believe that was Elvis
“Toast” Patterson playing nickel for the beleaguered and beat-up New
York secondary.
Peter doesn't want to deflate the win or make light of the Giants' injuries, but he'll fucking do as he pleases anyway. As I've shown before, when Peter says, "I don't want to do this," then you know he is immediately going to do that thing he claims he doesn't want to do.
14. San Francisco (5-4). There are elements to
criticize in Colin Kaepernick’s game Sunday in New Orleans, but he kept
the vital play alive at the end of regulation, saving the season with a
51-yard bomb to Michael Crabtree on fourth-and-10 from the Niners’ 22.
Now the Niners (at New York Giants, Washington at home) can be relevant
for their Thanksgiving Night showdown with Seattle at Levi’s Stadium if
they take care of business in two winnable games.
Uh-oh, could the Seattle-San Francisco game be the one that THE MMQB will have so much fun covering on Thanksgiving day?
T-15. Buffalo (5-4). The offense is really limiting the
growth of this team. Points in last seven games: 10, 17, 17, 22, 17, 43
(against the Jets) and 13. That’s not going to get it done.
Like Peter told E.J. Manuel to do, maybe Kyle Orton should just throw it deep more often.
Offensive Player of the Week
Michael Vick, quarterback, New York Jets. A Jets
quarterback, player of the week? Heresy! Classic Vick game, doing just
enough with his legs (39 yards rushing, including a nifty 18-yarder), an
efficient 10 of 18 for 132 and two touchdowns
"Efficient" being defined as "Not very good, but he didn't commit a turnover and his team won the game so I have no other idea what to call it."
(including a well-thrown 67-yarder to T.J. Graham). Best things: No interceptions, no fumbles lost, no fumbles period.
As I said, not very good, but he didn't commit any turnovers. Vick was 9-17 for 65 yards if you take away the T.J. Graham catch. You say "efficient" I say "not great, but the Jets won."
Defensive Players of the Week
I lied when I promised I’d only give a max of two awards in any category. I cannot whittle down the defensive men from Week 10.
At this point Peter, your readers fully expect you to immediately do something that you claim you will not be doing.
Kyle Shanahan, offensive coordinator, Cleveland. The
Browns have gone 3-0, averaging 23 points a game over the past three
weeks, without their best offensive weapon, wideout Josh Gordon, and
without Pro Bowl center Alex Mack, and, in Thursday’s game at
Cincinnati, without starting tight end Jordan Cameron and jitterbug
wideout Andrew Hawkins—all either hurt or suspended. Shanahan is playing
survival-ball with a cast of low-round picks and training-camp finds,
with a quarterback who may or may not be the answer.
But Hoyer is the best of the crop of free agent quarterbacks, so suitors line up to pay for his services as soon as possible!
It's funny that Peter acted shocked earlier in this MMQB that the Browns had not had contract talks with Brian Hoyer since May, yet Peter writes here that Hoyer may or may not be the answer for the Browns at quarterback. Gee Peter, maybe that's the reason the Browns haven't had contract extension talks with Hoyer since May?
Goat of the Week
Andy Dalton, quarterback, Cincinnati. It was one of
the most mind-numbingly awful performances by a quarterback of this, or
any, NFL season. Dalton’s 10-for-33, no-touchdown, three-interception
game Thursday in the 24-3 loss to Cleveland reinforced the belief among
Bengal partisans that Dalton is not the man to lead the Bengals out of
the football wilderness.
Yeah, that was terrible. I have nothing. Bash away.
“It was definitely not a push-off. I’m running down the field telling
myself, ‘Whatever you do, don’t push off.’ It’s interesting how guys
grab me everywhere on the field and I put literally two fingers on
somebody, and they make that kind of call.”
—New Orleans tight end Jimmy Graham, on the offensive pass
interference call at the end of the fourth quarter that negated what
would have been the winning touchdown.
So allow me to get this straight...a Saints player obviously cheated and then indignantly denies what everyone accepts as obvious cheating or foul play? Noooooooooooo...that doesn't happen. I don't believe a Saints player would deny anything like this happening.
I mean, I have great admiration for Graham the player. But that is just
crazy. Graham pushed off, the defender hit the ground, and it enabled
him to catch a touchdown pass that rightfully was flagged and called
back.
Jimmy Graham should have just used coach-speak and Peter would have nodded and completely let this comment slide.
Many of you have wondered about the NFL’s love affair for the London
games. Not surprisingly, it has to do with money, and exposure, and a
bet on the globalization of football. There will be three more games at
Wembley Stadium next season (Jets-Dolphins, Lions-Chiefs,
Bills-Jaguars), so the experiment clearly is not going away.
More than exposure or globalization, it has to do with money. That's all that needs to be said. Whenever the Panthers end up losing a home game to play in London, you will find me writing on this blog pissed off about it. That's what upsets me the most. NFL fans with season tickets are losing a home game (and of course are still stuck with two worthless preseason home games) so that the NFL can expand into other markets. I think it's great the NFL wants to expand. I don't think it's okay the NFL wants to expand while taking away one of the 8 home games that each NFL team gets per season.
Peter shows that the NFL had ticket revenue of $31 million from the three games in London this year. I don't know how that works, but I wonder if season ticket owners for teams that lost a home game had to still pay for the home game they didn't get a chance to attend? If so, having the fans pay for 8 regular season home games instead of 7 regular season games is great revenue for the NFL also.
The bigger question, probably, is how much more the Jacksonville Jaguars can make from a home game in London versus a home game in North Florida. (In exchange for their four-year commitment to playing in London, the Jags receive the full home-team share at Wembley; other teams that give up home games receive what they’d average in a home game in the U.S., and the remainder is shared among all 32 teams.) Assume the Jags would have sold out the game Sunday against Dallas—67,297 seats, at an average ticket price of about $58. The gate at Wembley Stadium would be about $6.7 million more than if the game was played in Jacksonville.
I would like to know if Jags fans are having to pay for 8 regular season home games and they are getting 7 home games. I would hope not. Either way, if I'm a Jags fan then I'm pissed that I am missing out on 8 regular season home games just so the NFL can expand their brand. Of course, the NFL does whatever the hell it wants to at all times.
MR. STARWOOD PREFERRED MEMBER TRAVEL NOTE OF THE WEEK
I had to drive from Manhattan to Boston on Thursday morning for a breakfast meeting. It’s about 208 miles from point to point. I left Manhattan at 4:50 a.m., sharp. Stopped once, briefly—at a drive-thru Starbucks on the Merritt Parkway in Woodbridge (near New Haven), and, at that hour, managed to avoid traffic everywhere for the first 170 miles … and I started imagining: This could be my first-ever New York-to-Boston drive in less than three hours.
This is Peter's fault. Never start talking or imagining about what good time you are making. It's sure to end quickly. Plus, if Peter had not stopped for coffee perhaps he could have missed some of the traffic or been five minutes ahead of the traffic.
I was 33 miles out when, on the Mass Pike, my dream died. Morning rush into Boston—not good. That traffic is as soul-sucking as the FDR Drive in Manhattan in the morning. Three hours, 33 minutes. Bummer.
Speaking of soul-sucking, how about hearing Peter talk about his frustrations while traveling, especially his frustrations while driving? It's like Peter doesn't think other people have the same inconveniences and issues while traveling, but his are more important because he's Peter King. It's bad enough personally getting stuck in traffic, but having the privilege of hearing about someone else getting stuck in traffic? That defines riveting.
Not a travel note, but a life one I thought you might enjoy.
Probably not.
Most mornings when I am home, I walk out of my apartment on the east side of Manhattan and head over to a bodega a block away and buy the New York Post and New York Daily News. (We get the New York Times and Wall Street Journal home-delivered.)
Look at you Mr. Fancy Pants with your four newspapers you read everyday, including getting two of those home delivered. I hope you don't have to walk in your gold plated bedroom slippers out of the house to pick up these papers you ol' rich boy.
The front pages of the papers are always … interesting. None moreso than Saturday’s Post. I like the Seinfeldian details at the bottom of the story.
So Seinfeldian. I think Peter's dream situation would be to get stuck on a deserted island with only Seinfeld, Meryl Streep and Philip Seymour Hoffman movies, and news shows anchored by Brian Williams to watch while U2 CD's constantly play in the background. Naturally, there would be a Starbucks barista on-call as well on this deserted island. Peter would never want to leave that island.
TEN THINGS I THINK I THINK
1. I think this is what I liked about Week 10:
b. Receiver Preston Parker of the Giants. A more physical receiver than I’d thought.
I would love to know prior to this past Sunday's action how physical Peter King thought Preston Parker actually was. I'm guessing he had barely heard of Parker.
i. Denard Robinson, with more explosiveness than I thought he had, on a 32-yard touchdown burst against Dallas.
Again, I would love to know how much explosiveness Peter King thought Denard Robinson had. Did Peter not watch Robinson at the University of Michigan? Peter King has more generic previous thoughts about players than I thought he had.
m. Are you kidding me with that flip-pass while getting dragged down, Ben Roethlisberger?
Yes, it was all a joke he was playing on you, Peter. You fell for it!
n. Anquan Boldin: best physical receiver in football.
o. Mike Evans: heir to best physical receiver in football.
Mike Evans is more physical than Peter thought he was.
2. I think this is what I didn’t like about Week 10:
d. Come on, Blake Bortles. Ever throw a touch pass?
Sometimes there is a reason a rookie quarterback doesn't start Week 1 of his rookie season, even after he had a great preseason. Exhibition games are exhibition games and better left to be played in London and then ignored.
f. I know. Alex Rodriguez is a baseball player. Or used to be. I just
wanted to emphasize how much I don’t like him. I also cannot figure out
how he can keep track of so many lies to so many people.
#hotarodtakes
What Peter liked this week:
a. Great coverage by Richard Sherman on Odell Beckham on the goal line,
forcing a deflected interception into the arms of safety Earl Thomas—and
a gutsy return by Thomas. He could have taken a knee eight yards deep
in the end zone, but Thomas had the presence to take it out, and he got
it out to the Seattle 42.
What Peter didn't like:
k. Please, De’Anthony Thomas. You’re good. You’re not Superman. You
cannot field punts at the 2-yard line in the National Football League.
You can't field punts at the 2-yard line in the NFL, but if you intercept a pass eight yards deep in the end zone, feel free to try to bring it out. If it works, Peter is totally cool with it.
5. I think this should be required reading
for you this week, whether you love football unconditionally or whether
you are having queasy thoughts about football’s place in our society.
The title of writer Michael Sokolove’s piece is, “Is football the next
tobacco?” Good question, and a thoughtful story.
Actually, the title of the piece that Peter linked is, "How One Lawyer's Crusade Could Change Football Forever." There is a discussion of football as a parallel to tobacco in the article, but not in the title of the piece.
6. I think Carson Palmer re-signing Friday is a tremendous boost to
Brian Hoyer’s prospective new deal, wherever it ends up being done.
There is not a marquee quarterback (is there ever?) in the 2015
free-agent quarterback pool. The two most interesting—which could
change, depending on how Ryan Mallett does with his chance in Houston in
the last half of the season—are Hoyer and restricted free-agent Austin
Davis of the Rams. How I would rate the top five prospective quarterback
free-agents-to-be, in order:
Good, I was dying to know who Peter thought were the top five prospective quarterback free-agents-to-be were.
Brian Hoyer, Cleveland. Quick release, ability to process info.
Has made some big throws under pressure for the Browns during their
surprising 6-3 start, and the Browns have had zero conversations about a
new contract for Hoyer since May, agent Joe Linta said Sunday. Linta
also had Joe Flacco a couple of years ago. Flacco played out his deal
and was rewarded after the Ravens won the Super Bowl. Hoyer has nowhere
near the résumé of Flacco, of course. But he’s got one thing in common
with Flacco. “He’s like Joe,” Linta said. “He’s bet on himself.”
The way Flacco and Hoyer bet on themselves seems a bit different. Flacco had a lot more money to lose if he bombed during his contract year, while Hoyer had money to lose, but probably not quite as much as Flacco did. Flacco probably (and I am assuming, granted) got a pretty good offer from the Ravens prior to his Super Bowl victory with $20 million in guaranteed money at least and gave it up to see if he could increase his value. Hoyer probably wasn't offered anything in that neighborhood in May from the Browns. So yes, they both bet on themselves, but Flacco seemingly had a lot more to lose in terms of money than Hoyer did by turning down the Browns attempts at a contract extension in May.
Mark Sanchez, Philadelphia. Much to see in the next two months,
but in the right system, running a fast-paced offense (more to his
liking), I think he has a chance to compete to be someone’s starter for a
few years.
It's amazing how a few good starts change the narrative around a quarterback.
Austin Davis, St. Louis. He’s restricted, meaning the Rams will
have the right to match any offer he gets. But Davis has been impressive
under tough circumstances, and much more accurate than the Rams had any
right to expect. He’s had 76 percent, 71 percent and 85 percent passing
games in the past two months.
Austin Davis has more accuracy than Peter thought he did.
Jake Locker, Tennessee. Maybe, just maybe, the right coach
can work on his accuracy issues, which are major. I don’t know what
anyone can do about his injury issues, which also are many.
Peter has been talking about improving Locker's accuracy for 3-4 seasons now. He's never been an accurate quarterback. That's just not who he is. Live with it. When he's not injured, he's not terribly accurate. Accuracy can be improved, but it's not always the easiest thing for a quarterback to do.
I have always gotten irritated because Locker's accuracy issues are treated like a little work can improve them. Yes and no. He's never healthy, first off. Second, a comparison of how a Hall of Fame quarterback like Brett Favre improved his accuracy doesn't mean Jake Locker can do the same thing.
9. I think this was a refreshing take from Tony Romo on the future of
football in London. He loved the week, said he loves London, and said,
“As far as a team in London, I would recommend it for sure. I loved it
here.” Music to Roger Goodell’s ears.
Nobody asked Tony if HE wanted to be the guy who played for an NFL team in London did they? Easy to love it when you don't have to worry about being the guy crossing the ocean to play in London for eight games in a season.
10. I think these are my non-football thoughts of the week:
b. Story of the week: Tyler Dunne of the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel with a few thousand interesting words
on Brett Favre. Said he doesn’t want to do a TV gig, in part because of
the travel and in part because, as he says, “I don’t want to sit around
the set all day and hear Warren Sapp tell stories.”
Brett Favre would much rather sit around and hear other people listen to his stories I would assume. Because I'm an asshole, I think Brett Favre doesn't want to do a TV gig because that would involve sharing the spotlight. He much prefers to do interviews every year about himself and how he doesn't want to be in the spotlight, thereby putting himself back in the spotlight. You can't fool me Favre.
c. This could be prominent among the Things I’ll Never Figure Out About
College Football: Why, in the midst of the home stretch of the college
football season, was Ole Miss hosting the Presbyterian College Blue Hose
(enrollment 1,172)? And why was Mississippi State hosting the
Tennessee-Martin Skyhawks?
The same reason the NFL plays in London. Ticket revenue from fans attending the game. It's not that hard to figure out.
l. Beernerdness: Found a poor man’s Pliny The Elder in a west side bar
in Manhattan on Saturday: Harpoon 100 Barrel series #51, Cambridge
Uncommon Pale Lager. The name is long. The beer is worth it. It’s a cool
beer—as the name implies, a combination of IPA with lager, leaving a
bit of pine taste on the pallet.
I don't see where the name implies a combination of IPA with lager. I see it implies lager.
p. The basketball season is about 314 games long, and people are worried that the Cavaliers started 1-3? Sheesh.
Says the guy in the industry with "people" (and even Peter to an extent) who were worried the Patriots and the Seahawks would struggle all year.
Philadelphia 23, Carolina 16. Funny how all the focus in this
game is whether Mark Sanchez can play competently enough for the Eagles
to win. I wonder if Cam Newton (last three games: 48.1 percent
completions, one touchdown pass) can.
Well, I guess "we" got our answer didn't we?
The Adieu Haiku
The Cards: 8 and 1.
Even with Carson injured,
still NFC’s best.
Okay buddy. If Bruce Arians can make Drew Stanton into a real live NFL starting quarterback then he is deserving of Coach of the Year. If Arians can win a Super Bowl with Stanton as his quarterback then he should be inducted into the Pro Football Hall of Fame immediately. Color me skeptical that the Cardinals can win a Super Bowl with Stanton as the quarterback. I think this injury definitely doesn't mean the Cardinals are the NFC's best team. Of course, I'm also not smart enough to do haikus and read four newspapers per day either.
Showing posts with label detroit lions. Show all posts
Showing posts with label detroit lions. Show all posts
Tuesday, November 11, 2014
Monday, February 10, 2014
5 comments David Steele Keeps Talking Jim Caldwell Up
About a year ago David Steele wrote an article championing Jim Caldwell to get another chance as an NFL head coach. I wrote that he (Caldwell, not Steele...though Steele should be ignored too in this case) should continue to be ignored, based off Steele's column that stated Caldwell deserves another shot to be an NFL head coach. It turns out Caldwell did end up getting another NFL job, he's now the head coach for the Detroit Lions. So David Steele now writes that Caldwell should not be viewed as a leftover pick, even though the Lions did have Ken Whisenhunt (who really isn't the cream of the crop either if you ask me) as their first choice. The Lions even sent a plane to pick up Whisenhunt, which he did not choose to board, so the Lions' plane sat sadly at the airport probably with a sad look on it's face like this one.
I'm not down on Jim Caldwell as much as I don't understand why David Steele thinks Caldwell really, really deserves another chance to be a head coach in the NFL. I understand head coaches get a second chance in the NFL all the time and I understand they work sometimes (Belichick, Carroll, Coughlin) and they don't work out sometimes (Jeff Fis---I'm just kidding, Mike Shanahan, Joe Gibbs, Romeo Crennel, Eric Mangini). It all depends on the coach. I've seen some sportswriters try to get fancy in defending the selection of Whisenhunt and Caldwell by pointing out three of the head coaches in the AFC and NFC Championship games were so-called retread hires. It's not really the same thing. Bill Belichick I will grant you, but John Fox was successful in Carolina, but was let go for philosophical reasons (mainly Jerry Richardson didn't believe in paying a coach who hasn't made back-to-back playoff appearances $7 million per year...which of course led to Fox making back-to-back-to-back playoff appearances in Denver) and Pete Carroll wasn't overly-successful in New England, but he was very successful at USC. Jim Caldwell hasn't had the previous success outside of two seasons in his coaching career and he was a horrendous college coach, unless you don't count win-loss record as part of whether a head coach was successful or not.
I will list Caldwell's record as a head coach again to show you he isn't a successful head coach who was done in by a bad season in Indianapolis. Those two seasons of success in Indianapolis are the outlier in his coaching record.
1993-2000 Head Coach for Wake Forest University:
1993: 2-9
1994: 3-8
1995: 1-10
1996: 3-8
1997: 5-6
1998: 3-8
1999: 7-5
2000: 2-9
2009-2011 Head Coach for the Indianapolis Colts:
2009: 14-2
2010: 10-6
2011: 2-14
Again, Caldwell is 28-77 when Peyton Manning isn't his quarterback. He's 24-8 with Manning as his quarterback. I'm pretty sure Peyton Manning doesn't play for the Detroit Lions. I want to be fair to Jim Caldwell and I don't think the Ken Whisenhunt hire was the greatest hire either. His record in Arizona shows you he is a quarterback-whisperer who couldn't develop a quarterback and constantly switched the quarterback and running back positions around, pulling guys in and out of the starting lineup. Jay Gruden, well he has no coaching record at the college or NFL level, so I will bite my tongue for now. I feel like Caldwell's hire by the Lions is a bizarre version of the NFL good ol' boys network. Tony Dungy and Peyton Manning gave Caldwell good references, as did Joe Flacco. It almost feels like Caldwell got the job based on his references as opposed to his coaching record.
I can't deny that Caldwell may be great for Matthew Stafford and he may help him take the next step (cliche alert) as a quarterback, but I feel like Caldwell is more offensive coordinator material and I think his time in Indianapolis backs that up. The Colts during his tenure has head coach went from making the Super Bowl to losing a home wild card game to going 2-14 without Peyton Manning. I could be wrong about Jim Caldwell. I'm not vehemently against him, but I also don't think his resume screams for another NFL head coaching job. I feel Whisenhunt rode Kurt Warner's coattails a little bit as well, but David Steele didn't write about Ken Whisenhunt in this column.
The job considered the best, most potential-laden opening in this NFL offseason went to a coach who has made the most out of a similar situation before.
But did (a) Jim Caldwell make the best of a similar situation before and (b) was it a similar situation? When Caldwell took over the Colts in 2009 they were a team coming off a 12-4 season and they had not had fewer than 11 wins since 2002. The Colts had made the playoffs 9 of the last 10 seasons. Oh, and they had a Hall of Fame quarterback at the helm.
The Detroit Lions are coming off a 7-9 year and they haven't had 11 or more wins since 1991. The Lions have made the playoffs 9 times since 1982 and the last time they won a playoff game was 1991.
I don't believe these two situations are similar at all. Both teams had good offenses and quarterbacks who were good at their job, but I really think that is where the similarity ends. The Colts are a successful franchise where Caldwell only had to make sure he didn't screw up as the head coach. The Lions want to keep the status quo on offense, but they are 11-21 over the last two seasons, so Caldwell is expected to improve the team, not just keep the boat afloat.
The Detroit Lions did not win in recent years despite their wealth of talent on both sides of the ball, including a former first-overall pick at quarterback—which is why Jim Schwartz is no longer there.
But, but, but...the Colts had experienced success when Tony Dungy retired and Caldwell took over the team. The Lions haven't experienced near the type of success the Colts had when Caldwell took over in 2009. So how is this a similar situation again?
His first was inherited from Tony Dungy in 2009, three seasons after the Indianapolis Colts won the Super Bowl, and with Peyton Manning still in his prime.
Ahem.
Caldwell, Dungy’s top assistant and closest confidant, took the Colts to a 14-0 start and threatened a perfect regular season until an organizational decision to rest the starters cost them the final two games. The Colts went to the Super Bowl and lost to the Saints.
Notice how it was an organizational decision to rest the starters in those last two games, so the fact the Colts didn't win the last two games at all shouldn't reflect on him. Also, if David Steele took the time to look at the box score for this game then he would see Peyton Manning and the Colts starters seemed to play a significant portion of the Week 16 game and in the Week 17 game the only offensive starters who seemed to sit where Peyton Manning (and not even for the full game) and Donald Brown. Maybe the lesson is a team can't win games with Curtis Painter as the quarterback or maybe this is a lesson about Jim Caldwell's head coaching ability when Peyton Manning isn't his quarterback for an entire game.
Caldwell was fired two seasons later, after it was proven that Curtis Painter and Kerry Collins were inadequate replacements for the injured Manning—and after owner Jim Irsay completely overhauled the organization after releasing Manning and the balloon contract payment he was owed.
To be fair, it's nearly impossible to replace Peyton Manning. On the other hand, if Caldwell was such an offensive mastermind and capable of working with quarterbacks to make them successful then how come he wasn't able to turn Painter into at least a somewhat functional quarterback after having worked with him over the prior two seasons? I get that he can't make Painter a good quarterback and much of the issue with not having a good backup in place lands on the front office, but for a guy who is known for his offensive prowess the Colts offense fell apart badly without Manning.
The lukewarm reaction to Caldwell’s candidacy has stemmed largely from that final 2-14 mark in 2011.
Plus, he was an absolute failure at Wake Forest and made only one bowl game from 1993-2000. I figure that has to in some way figure into the decision-making process. When considering Caldwell as a head coach, even though college football is different from NFL football, his college record has to be taken into account. Not too many college coaches with a 26-63 record are receiving NFL head coaching jobs. So I would argue Caldwell's candidacy stems positively stems from his two good seasons with the Colts as their head coach, as opposed to the rest of his resume which reads as saying Caldwell is not head coaching material.
His work before that in all of his years in Indianapolis—and afterward, with his two seasons with the Ravens, including his elevation to offensive coordinator in time to jump-start their run to the Super Bowl—apparently weighed more to the NFL teams that were interested in him.
I realize the Ravens lost a lot of key free agents and had injuries as well, but the Ravens were 29th in total yards per game on offense and Joe Flacco has his worst year as a professional. It seems like when judging Caldwell's ability as a head coach there a lot of talk like "Well, ignore that because of Problem X and Problem Y." It's as of I am supposed to ignore Caldwell's record when injuries occur or he doesn't have Peyton Manning as his quarterback, which is fine, but it leads me to ask how good of a head coach Caldwell will be if injuries occur (which they do) and Manning isn't his quarterback while coaching the Lions?
Caldwell’s Colts hardly underachieved with Manning;
I wouldn't say the Colts underachieved, but under Caldwell the Colts won two games one season without Manning and won fewer than 11 games with Manning as the quarterback for the first time since 2002. So relative to what the Colts were used to, in two of Caldwell's three seasons as the Colts head coach they did underachieve.
during the Dungy years Caldwell’s role in Manning’s separation from the rest of the quarterback pack has been almost criminally understated.
Caldwell was the Colts quarterbacks coach from 2002-2008 and I have no idea how crucial he was to Manning's development. Most of the praise I read was for Howard Mudd and Tom Moore, but I'm sure Jim Caldwell had something to do with Manning being the type of quarterback he is today. If Caldwell had never been an NFL head coach on any level then I would say his work with Flacco during the 2012 season and his affiliation with Manning may be enough to get him a head coaching job. Unfortunately, the Lions haven't hired Caldwell to be Stafford's quarterbacks coach or offensive coordinator. They have hired him to be the head coach of the team, which is where I question the hire in some aspects. I just feel like he's not a head coach.
Not to mention the title of this column is that Jim Caldwell shouldn't be perceived as Lions' leftover pick, but that's exactly what he is, so that's how he is going to be perceived. The Lions very clearly wanted to hire Ken Whisenhunt as their head coach, but he ignored them and took the job with the Titans before the Lions could even interview him. I know David Steele doesn't want Caldwell to be perceived as the Lions' backup plan, but from all appearances that's what he is. Steele can't just prevent this perception by wishing it away.
The praise he received for how he tapped the potential of the Joe Flacco-led offense for Baltimore during their playoff run, was a belated recognition of his abilities.
Okay, so what happened during the 2013 season then? I know the Ravens had injuries and other extenuating circumstances, but why wasn't Flacco tapped into his potential during the 2013 season? Was it his supporting cast and injuries that were the problem? How come Jim Caldwell couldn't get Ray Rice and Bernard Pierce on track and rushing the ball well? Was it the offensive line issues that got in the way? It's all well and good, but it feels like Caldwell got the Lions job based on his references (Dungy, Manning) and the fact Matthew Stafford seemed to like him, more than his record as a head coach and offensive coordinator.
Dungy gave him a strong endorsement for the Lions job, according to multiple reports,
Of course he did. They are good friends and Dungry was Caldwell's biggest supporter for the Lions job and Dungy basically hand-picked Caldwell as his successor when he retired from head coaching in 2008. The fact that Tony Dungy gave Caldwell strong endorsement only serves to show that Dungy still has faith in Caldwell to do the job of an NFL head coach. So if the Lions and David Steele thinks Jim Caldwell deserves another shot to be a head coach based on Dungy's endorsement, that's fine. This wouldn't be the first time a well-respected head coach was wrong about one of his assistant coach's ability to be a successful head coach himself though.
Basically, I don't care what Tony Dungy thinks and if the Lions decided to hire Caldwell based mostly on what Tony Dungy states about Caldwell then that is fine. The Lions aren't Dungy's organization and he has no stake in whether the Lions continue to succeed or not. Dungy is warm and happy working in the NBC studio. He has no reason not to support his friend for the Lions' head coaching job. If the Lions decided to hire Caldwell based partly on Peyton Manning's endorsement then they had better hope Matthew Stafford is willing to listen and run with Caldwell's advice like a Hall of Fame quarterback was able to. I understand Caldwell helped Flacco become successful in the playoffs last year, but Flacco took a step back (for whatever reason) this past season.
and he took to Twitter to immediately predict a playoff trip in his first season.
Which essentially means absolutely nothing. Tony Dungy is of course going to predict good things for the guy he recommended and championed to get the Detroit Lions job. I know David Steele can't be stupid enough to think Dungy would recommend Caldwell for the job and then not be confident in Caldwell's abilities to lead the Lions to the playoffs.
However, it’s likely that the more pivotal endorsement came from Matthew Stafford, the aforementioned former No. 1 pick who has hardly reached Manning levels in his five years.
And that's great, but it still doesn't mean Caldwell wasn't the Lions second choice.
By all accounts, Stafford and Caldwell meshed when the quarterback took part in the Lions’ interviews with the coaching candidate. Caldwell’s preparation, in which he broke down every throw Stafford made this past season, also made an impact on the team and player.
I understand the Lions want a head coach that is going to work well with Matthew Stafford and turn him into the quarterback they believe that he can be, but Stafford is going to be working with the offensive coordinator and quarterbacks coach on a daily basis while Caldwell has to deal with the head coaching duties.
Caldwell likely was at least the second choice, behind Ken Whisenhunt, who jumped from the Chargers’ staff to the Titans before the Lions could make an offer.
Hence, he was the leftover choice.
Whisenhunt also has one spectacular season with a veteran Hall of Fame quarterback, Kurt Warner, who took his previous team to a Super Bowl, and had a losing record otherwise without him. Yet the perception was that whoever got Whisenhunt was striking gold, and whoever got Caldwell was settling for leftovers.
I think this perception is entirely in Steele's head because that's a lazier way to frame his argument that Jim Caldwell is this overlooked gem. I don't think the Whisenhunt hire was a great one for the Titans. Whisenhunt has made quite a few questionable decisions on the offensive end of the ball for me to trust him to build Jake Locker's confidence and get the most out of him. In Arizona, Whisenhunt went from Matt Leinart to Kurt Warner to Derek Anderson to John Skelton to Kevin Kolb to Max Hall to Ryan Lindley to Brian Hoyer with a little bit of Richard Bartel mixed in during his six seasons as a head coach for the Cardinals. The running back position was near the same story. Running backs were drafted high and never panned out, which may or may not be Whisenhunt's fault, but it's part of his legacy as the Cardinals head coach.
So no, whoever got Whisenhunt wasn't striking gold, but honestly he has a longer history of being a successful offensive coordinator when compared to Jim Caldwell. Like Caldwell, Whisenhunt has also benefited as a head coach from strong, veteran quarterback play while not showing success working with a young quarterback as a head coach.
Caldwell’s overlooked, underappreciated track record says otherwise.
I don't think Caldwell is underappreciated. I think he is overappreciated if anything. There are two seasons on Jim Caldwell's head coaching resume that are outliers and those two years are the two seasons he was the head coach of the Colts with Peyton Manning as his quarterback. That's his track record. Outside of those two seasons, he has a long history of losing records as a head coach and limited experience (around a season and a half) as an offensive coordinator in the NFL. He's calm and completely different from Jim Schwartz which I know will be looked upon favorably in Detroit. So there's that.
It tells you that he’s an ideal fit for a team too talented not to win.
It tells me he is an ideal fit for a team who is already winning and needs stability in a head coach so the established quarterback can continue winning games. When Caldwell has to coach a team that hasn't won a ton of games recently his track record isn't pretty. Maybe Jim Caldwell will succeed in Detroit as the head coach, but if I were a Lions fan I would be much more comfortable if he was working with Matthew Stafford on a daily basis as the quarterbacks coach or offensive coordinator, as opposed to being the man in charge of turning the team around. Caldwell's track record says he hasn't had success at doing that.
I'm not down on Jim Caldwell as much as I don't understand why David Steele thinks Caldwell really, really deserves another chance to be a head coach in the NFL. I understand head coaches get a second chance in the NFL all the time and I understand they work sometimes (Belichick, Carroll, Coughlin) and they don't work out sometimes (Jeff Fis---I'm just kidding, Mike Shanahan, Joe Gibbs, Romeo Crennel, Eric Mangini). It all depends on the coach. I've seen some sportswriters try to get fancy in defending the selection of Whisenhunt and Caldwell by pointing out three of the head coaches in the AFC and NFC Championship games were so-called retread hires. It's not really the same thing. Bill Belichick I will grant you, but John Fox was successful in Carolina, but was let go for philosophical reasons (mainly Jerry Richardson didn't believe in paying a coach who hasn't made back-to-back playoff appearances $7 million per year...which of course led to Fox making back-to-back-to-back playoff appearances in Denver) and Pete Carroll wasn't overly-successful in New England, but he was very successful at USC. Jim Caldwell hasn't had the previous success outside of two seasons in his coaching career and he was a horrendous college coach, unless you don't count win-loss record as part of whether a head coach was successful or not.
I will list Caldwell's record as a head coach again to show you he isn't a successful head coach who was done in by a bad season in Indianapolis. Those two seasons of success in Indianapolis are the outlier in his coaching record.
1993-2000 Head Coach for Wake Forest University:
1993: 2-9
1994: 3-8
1995: 1-10
1996: 3-8
1997: 5-6
1998: 3-8
1999: 7-5
2000: 2-9
2009-2011 Head Coach for the Indianapolis Colts:
2009: 14-2
2010: 10-6
2011: 2-14
Again, Caldwell is 28-77 when Peyton Manning isn't his quarterback. He's 24-8 with Manning as his quarterback. I'm pretty sure Peyton Manning doesn't play for the Detroit Lions. I want to be fair to Jim Caldwell and I don't think the Ken Whisenhunt hire was the greatest hire either. His record in Arizona shows you he is a quarterback-whisperer who couldn't develop a quarterback and constantly switched the quarterback and running back positions around, pulling guys in and out of the starting lineup. Jay Gruden, well he has no coaching record at the college or NFL level, so I will bite my tongue for now. I feel like Caldwell's hire by the Lions is a bizarre version of the NFL good ol' boys network. Tony Dungy and Peyton Manning gave Caldwell good references, as did Joe Flacco. It almost feels like Caldwell got the job based on his references as opposed to his coaching record.
I can't deny that Caldwell may be great for Matthew Stafford and he may help him take the next step (cliche alert) as a quarterback, but I feel like Caldwell is more offensive coordinator material and I think his time in Indianapolis backs that up. The Colts during his tenure has head coach went from making the Super Bowl to losing a home wild card game to going 2-14 without Peyton Manning. I could be wrong about Jim Caldwell. I'm not vehemently against him, but I also don't think his resume screams for another NFL head coaching job. I feel Whisenhunt rode Kurt Warner's coattails a little bit as well, but David Steele didn't write about Ken Whisenhunt in this column.
The job considered the best, most potential-laden opening in this NFL offseason went to a coach who has made the most out of a similar situation before.
But did (a) Jim Caldwell make the best of a similar situation before and (b) was it a similar situation? When Caldwell took over the Colts in 2009 they were a team coming off a 12-4 season and they had not had fewer than 11 wins since 2002. The Colts had made the playoffs 9 of the last 10 seasons. Oh, and they had a Hall of Fame quarterback at the helm.
The Detroit Lions are coming off a 7-9 year and they haven't had 11 or more wins since 1991. The Lions have made the playoffs 9 times since 1982 and the last time they won a playoff game was 1991.
I don't believe these two situations are similar at all. Both teams had good offenses and quarterbacks who were good at their job, but I really think that is where the similarity ends. The Colts are a successful franchise where Caldwell only had to make sure he didn't screw up as the head coach. The Lions want to keep the status quo on offense, but they are 11-21 over the last two seasons, so Caldwell is expected to improve the team, not just keep the boat afloat.
The Detroit Lions did not win in recent years despite their wealth of talent on both sides of the ball, including a former first-overall pick at quarterback—which is why Jim Schwartz is no longer there.
But, but, but...the Colts had experienced success when Tony Dungy retired and Caldwell took over the team. The Lions haven't experienced near the type of success the Colts had when Caldwell took over in 2009. So how is this a similar situation again?
His first was inherited from Tony Dungy in 2009, three seasons after the Indianapolis Colts won the Super Bowl, and with Peyton Manning still in his prime.
Ahem.
Caldwell, Dungy’s top assistant and closest confidant, took the Colts to a 14-0 start and threatened a perfect regular season until an organizational decision to rest the starters cost them the final two games. The Colts went to the Super Bowl and lost to the Saints.
Notice how it was an organizational decision to rest the starters in those last two games, so the fact the Colts didn't win the last two games at all shouldn't reflect on him. Also, if David Steele took the time to look at the box score for this game then he would see Peyton Manning and the Colts starters seemed to play a significant portion of the Week 16 game and in the Week 17 game the only offensive starters who seemed to sit where Peyton Manning (and not even for the full game) and Donald Brown. Maybe the lesson is a team can't win games with Curtis Painter as the quarterback or maybe this is a lesson about Jim Caldwell's head coaching ability when Peyton Manning isn't his quarterback for an entire game.
Caldwell was fired two seasons later, after it was proven that Curtis Painter and Kerry Collins were inadequate replacements for the injured Manning—and after owner Jim Irsay completely overhauled the organization after releasing Manning and the balloon contract payment he was owed.
To be fair, it's nearly impossible to replace Peyton Manning. On the other hand, if Caldwell was such an offensive mastermind and capable of working with quarterbacks to make them successful then how come he wasn't able to turn Painter into at least a somewhat functional quarterback after having worked with him over the prior two seasons? I get that he can't make Painter a good quarterback and much of the issue with not having a good backup in place lands on the front office, but for a guy who is known for his offensive prowess the Colts offense fell apart badly without Manning.
The lukewarm reaction to Caldwell’s candidacy has stemmed largely from that final 2-14 mark in 2011.
Plus, he was an absolute failure at Wake Forest and made only one bowl game from 1993-2000. I figure that has to in some way figure into the decision-making process. When considering Caldwell as a head coach, even though college football is different from NFL football, his college record has to be taken into account. Not too many college coaches with a 26-63 record are receiving NFL head coaching jobs. So I would argue Caldwell's candidacy stems positively stems from his two good seasons with the Colts as their head coach, as opposed to the rest of his resume which reads as saying Caldwell is not head coaching material.
His work before that in all of his years in Indianapolis—and afterward, with his two seasons with the Ravens, including his elevation to offensive coordinator in time to jump-start their run to the Super Bowl—apparently weighed more to the NFL teams that were interested in him.
I realize the Ravens lost a lot of key free agents and had injuries as well, but the Ravens were 29th in total yards per game on offense and Joe Flacco has his worst year as a professional. It seems like when judging Caldwell's ability as a head coach there a lot of talk like "Well, ignore that because of Problem X and Problem Y." It's as of I am supposed to ignore Caldwell's record when injuries occur or he doesn't have Peyton Manning as his quarterback, which is fine, but it leads me to ask how good of a head coach Caldwell will be if injuries occur (which they do) and Manning isn't his quarterback while coaching the Lions?
Caldwell’s Colts hardly underachieved with Manning;
I wouldn't say the Colts underachieved, but under Caldwell the Colts won two games one season without Manning and won fewer than 11 games with Manning as the quarterback for the first time since 2002. So relative to what the Colts were used to, in two of Caldwell's three seasons as the Colts head coach they did underachieve.
during the Dungy years Caldwell’s role in Manning’s separation from the rest of the quarterback pack has been almost criminally understated.
Caldwell was the Colts quarterbacks coach from 2002-2008 and I have no idea how crucial he was to Manning's development. Most of the praise I read was for Howard Mudd and Tom Moore, but I'm sure Jim Caldwell had something to do with Manning being the type of quarterback he is today. If Caldwell had never been an NFL head coach on any level then I would say his work with Flacco during the 2012 season and his affiliation with Manning may be enough to get him a head coaching job. Unfortunately, the Lions haven't hired Caldwell to be Stafford's quarterbacks coach or offensive coordinator. They have hired him to be the head coach of the team, which is where I question the hire in some aspects. I just feel like he's not a head coach.
Not to mention the title of this column is that Jim Caldwell shouldn't be perceived as Lions' leftover pick, but that's exactly what he is, so that's how he is going to be perceived. The Lions very clearly wanted to hire Ken Whisenhunt as their head coach, but he ignored them and took the job with the Titans before the Lions could even interview him. I know David Steele doesn't want Caldwell to be perceived as the Lions' backup plan, but from all appearances that's what he is. Steele can't just prevent this perception by wishing it away.
The praise he received for how he tapped the potential of the Joe Flacco-led offense for Baltimore during their playoff run, was a belated recognition of his abilities.
Okay, so what happened during the 2013 season then? I know the Ravens had injuries and other extenuating circumstances, but why wasn't Flacco tapped into his potential during the 2013 season? Was it his supporting cast and injuries that were the problem? How come Jim Caldwell couldn't get Ray Rice and Bernard Pierce on track and rushing the ball well? Was it the offensive line issues that got in the way? It's all well and good, but it feels like Caldwell got the Lions job based on his references (Dungy, Manning) and the fact Matthew Stafford seemed to like him, more than his record as a head coach and offensive coordinator.
Dungy gave him a strong endorsement for the Lions job, according to multiple reports,
Of course he did. They are good friends and Dungry was Caldwell's biggest supporter for the Lions job and Dungy basically hand-picked Caldwell as his successor when he retired from head coaching in 2008. The fact that Tony Dungy gave Caldwell strong endorsement only serves to show that Dungy still has faith in Caldwell to do the job of an NFL head coach. So if the Lions and David Steele thinks Jim Caldwell deserves another shot to be a head coach based on Dungy's endorsement, that's fine. This wouldn't be the first time a well-respected head coach was wrong about one of his assistant coach's ability to be a successful head coach himself though.
Basically, I don't care what Tony Dungy thinks and if the Lions decided to hire Caldwell based mostly on what Tony Dungy states about Caldwell then that is fine. The Lions aren't Dungy's organization and he has no stake in whether the Lions continue to succeed or not. Dungy is warm and happy working in the NBC studio. He has no reason not to support his friend for the Lions' head coaching job. If the Lions decided to hire Caldwell based partly on Peyton Manning's endorsement then they had better hope Matthew Stafford is willing to listen and run with Caldwell's advice like a Hall of Fame quarterback was able to. I understand Caldwell helped Flacco become successful in the playoffs last year, but Flacco took a step back (for whatever reason) this past season.
and he took to Twitter to immediately predict a playoff trip in his first season.
Which essentially means absolutely nothing. Tony Dungy is of course going to predict good things for the guy he recommended and championed to get the Detroit Lions job. I know David Steele can't be stupid enough to think Dungy would recommend Caldwell for the job and then not be confident in Caldwell's abilities to lead the Lions to the playoffs.
However, it’s likely that the more pivotal endorsement came from Matthew Stafford, the aforementioned former No. 1 pick who has hardly reached Manning levels in his five years.
And that's great, but it still doesn't mean Caldwell wasn't the Lions second choice.
By all accounts, Stafford and Caldwell meshed when the quarterback took part in the Lions’ interviews with the coaching candidate. Caldwell’s preparation, in which he broke down every throw Stafford made this past season, also made an impact on the team and player.
I understand the Lions want a head coach that is going to work well with Matthew Stafford and turn him into the quarterback they believe that he can be, but Stafford is going to be working with the offensive coordinator and quarterbacks coach on a daily basis while Caldwell has to deal with the head coaching duties.
Caldwell likely was at least the second choice, behind Ken Whisenhunt, who jumped from the Chargers’ staff to the Titans before the Lions could make an offer.
Hence, he was the leftover choice.
Whisenhunt also has one spectacular season with a veteran Hall of Fame quarterback, Kurt Warner, who took his previous team to a Super Bowl, and had a losing record otherwise without him. Yet the perception was that whoever got Whisenhunt was striking gold, and whoever got Caldwell was settling for leftovers.
I think this perception is entirely in Steele's head because that's a lazier way to frame his argument that Jim Caldwell is this overlooked gem. I don't think the Whisenhunt hire was a great one for the Titans. Whisenhunt has made quite a few questionable decisions on the offensive end of the ball for me to trust him to build Jake Locker's confidence and get the most out of him. In Arizona, Whisenhunt went from Matt Leinart to Kurt Warner to Derek Anderson to John Skelton to Kevin Kolb to Max Hall to Ryan Lindley to Brian Hoyer with a little bit of Richard Bartel mixed in during his six seasons as a head coach for the Cardinals. The running back position was near the same story. Running backs were drafted high and never panned out, which may or may not be Whisenhunt's fault, but it's part of his legacy as the Cardinals head coach.
So no, whoever got Whisenhunt wasn't striking gold, but honestly he has a longer history of being a successful offensive coordinator when compared to Jim Caldwell. Like Caldwell, Whisenhunt has also benefited as a head coach from strong, veteran quarterback play while not showing success working with a young quarterback as a head coach.
Caldwell’s overlooked, underappreciated track record says otherwise.
I don't think Caldwell is underappreciated. I think he is overappreciated if anything. There are two seasons on Jim Caldwell's head coaching resume that are outliers and those two years are the two seasons he was the head coach of the Colts with Peyton Manning as his quarterback. That's his track record. Outside of those two seasons, he has a long history of losing records as a head coach and limited experience (around a season and a half) as an offensive coordinator in the NFL. He's calm and completely different from Jim Schwartz which I know will be looked upon favorably in Detroit. So there's that.
It tells you that he’s an ideal fit for a team too talented not to win.
It tells me he is an ideal fit for a team who is already winning and needs stability in a head coach so the established quarterback can continue winning games. When Caldwell has to coach a team that hasn't won a ton of games recently his track record isn't pretty. Maybe Jim Caldwell will succeed in Detroit as the head coach, but if I were a Lions fan I would be much more comfortable if he was working with Matthew Stafford on a daily basis as the quarterbacks coach or offensive coordinator, as opposed to being the man in charge of turning the team around. Caldwell's track record says he hasn't had success at doing that.
Tuesday, October 29, 2013
6 comments MMQB Review: Matthew Stafford is So Different Now, Except for He Probably Isn't
Peter King told us last week the Colts had a little Luck (DO YOU STILL GET IT?) in beating the Broncos during Week 7. Peter also was concerned the Rams would not get enough attention because the Cardinals had a home game in the World Series, as well as continued his trend towards overreacting to what happened the weekend before by handing the AFC West to the Kansas City Chiefs and giving the Broncos an AFC Wild Card spot. Peter can hear us scoffing at him now, but less than 50% of the season had been played at that point, so the playoff seeding is nearly set. This week Peter talks about Matthew Stafford "coming of age" (which means, "Calvin Johnson had a great receiving day"...sort of), goes through the comments section of MMQB for responses to the MMQB (not the MMQB, but THE MMQB) articles about concussions, and relays a story from Robert Klemko about really weird Japanese people. Peter also continues his trend of seeing what happened over the past weekend and then reacting as if this event from the past weekend is a definite long-term trend.
Two months down, two to go. Time flies when you’re having fun. The Lions had some fun Sunday, and the resurgent Staffords will lead the column …
So I guess since the Lions won a game this past weekend over Dallas this means the Bears and Packers going to be fighting for a Wild Card spot after the Lions win the NFC North division.
but some headlines first:
Absolutely not. Let's talk about how Stafford is a great quarterback now based on the fact he made a really heads-up play at the end of the game on Sunday, had as many turnovers as touchdowns and threw for 488 yards with 329 of those yards going to one receiver.
Mike Pouncey might want to get lawyered up. As Pete Thamel and Greg A. Bedard reported Sunday night, the Massachusetts state police served the Miami Dolphins center with a Grand Jury subpoena after his game in Foxboro Sunday. “What’s this about?’’ Pouncey said when a gray-suited officer handed him the papers. It created a strange scene outside the Dolphins’ locker room at Gillette Stadium, with stunned team officials totally blindsided. Pouncey, too, evidently had no idea what was coming.
I think it would be fair to say the officer "pounced" on him, no?
Just like Clark Griswold’s Jelly of the Month Club present, the Kansas City quarterback brought more joy to two fan bases Sunday. In lifting the Chiefs to a 23-17 victory over Cleveland at home, Smith continued KC’s perfect (8-0) season.
Alex Smith continued the Chiefs perfect season by holding the Browns to 340 total yards and accumulating a massive 331 yards for the Chiefs offense. He's a winning winner who only wins. He's an efficient quarterback, as seen by his completion percentage of 59.1% which is good for 24th in the NFL, his yards per attempt of 6.28 which is good for 29th in the NFL, his quarterback rating of 82.1 which is good for 18th in the NFL, and his yards per game passing of 224 which is good for 23rd in the NFL. Smith has done all of this against such difficult teams like the Jags, Texans, Eagles, Giants, Titans, Raiders and Browns. Smith has been his usual average self against some really below-average competition, so kudos to him.
If you can't see through all that sarcasm, I think the Chiefs are a paper tiger. I had them at 9 wins before the season began and I think I was wrong about that number, but playing Denver and San Diego twice, along with a game against the Colts is going to tell me how good the Chiefs really are. Hey, I could be wrong and the Chiefs are one of the two best teams in the AFC, but I think the second half of the season isn't going to be as kind to Alex Smith and the Chiefs.
The original trade was Smith for a second-round pick in 2013 and a third-rounder in 2014 … but the third- in ’14 would become a second- if the Chiefs won eight games or more this season. That happened by mid-afternoon Sunday, as the Niners were trudging off the field at Wembley Stadium in London after whipping Jacksonville 42-10. As if San Francisco draft guru Trent Baalke needed more ammo, he now could be looking at six picks in the first three rounds next May:
Take that, Gregg Easterbrook, Mr. "The 49ers should have kept Alex Smith." As Alex Smith wins game for the Chiefs he helps the 49ers get a higher draft pick.
This just in: Calvin Johnson’s good. He had a nice month in three hours Sunday at Ford Field in Detroit’s 31-30 shocker of Dallas: 14 catches, 329 yards (seven short of the all-time single-game record), one touchdown.
I would love to know what kind of quarterback Matthew Stafford would be if he didn't have Calvin Johnson out there catching the ball for him. I know it's not fair to wonder that since Stafford does have Johnson and if you took any quarterback's best receiver away he wouldn't play as well, but so much of Stafford's success lies in having Johnson out there. Stafford's worst games of the season were when Johnson wasn't healthy. I probably have no point.
Remember the good ol’ days? Way back in the first half of the first game of the season, when the Chip Kelly offense was all the rage?
No Peter, but I remember all summer when you were up Chip Kelly's ass about how he ran his practices and talked about how the Eagles are doing things SO MUCH differently than every other NFL coach does things. I remember when you said the Chip Kelly hiring was the biggest hiring from the college ranks since Jimmy Johnson. I also remember when I stupidly bought into the crap you and your fellow sportswriters were peddling and predicted the Eagles would win the NFC East.
There’s some thought that because there is no “home” team in England, and selling a bad Jacksonville team (the Jags will play a game there in 2014, ’15 and ’16 at least) will be problematic right now, a good option is every team alternating. Of course, that won’t be a good option the minute you tell a Packers, Steelers, Broncos or Seahawks fan he or she has to lose a home game for the sake of expansionism.
Actually that won't be a good option for the fans of any NFL team who loses a home game for the sake of expansionism. I'll be damned if I want my favorite team to have seven home games because Roger Goodell insists on expanding to London.
But as one league operative told me recently: “If you guys [NBC, where I also work] can get 850,000 viewers for a Manchester United game on NBC Sports Network, why can’t we build a block of fans like that for football over there?”
Fine, build a block of fans in England, but don't take away home games to build that block. That's like if Manchester United lost a home soccer match and played here in the United States every year. Fuck that. The NFL can do whatever it wants to build a fan base in England, that's great, but NFL fans are already getting ripped off for two shitty preseason games, so they don't deserve to lose another home game for the sake of the NFL trying to expand. Show the games in England to build a fan base, don't take away home games from NFL teams. I know my opinion is probably in the minority.
Greg Jennings in the Revenge Game: One catch, nine yards, left the locker room before the media arrived following Green Bay’s 44-31 win at Minnesota last night. That’s 264 yards fewer than teammate Cordarrelle Patterson put on the board.
Poor Greg Jennings. It's so hard to be a great receiver when your quarterbacks all suck. Perhaps next time before Jennings runs his mouth about Aaron Rodgers he should find out if any of the quarterbacks on his Vikings team are any good or not.
I wrote last year about the possibility of a quarterback, in the not-too-distant future, throwing for 6,000 yards in a season. Aaron Rodgers, I theorized, would have the best shot. I’m not saying Peyton Manning’s going to do it this year, but let’s acknowledge the greatness of the first-half MVP here. In Denver’s 7-1 start,
It's a shame the Broncos are going to be getting a wild card in the AFC after starting out 7-1. At least Peter had the Broncos getting a wild card and the Chiefs winning the AFC West last week, perhaps Peter seen something shiny this week and has changed his opinion on this in the seven whole days since he last wrote MMQB. I'm sure as soon as the Chiefs lose, Peter will put the Broncos right back on top of the AFC West.
But let’s say he adds one medium-range skinny post per game in the final eight games. Say, an extra gain of 20 per game. If Manning averages 385 yards per game in his final eight, he’ll hit 6,000.
Of course Peter is ignoring the fact Manning could already be throwing for his peak amount of yardage right now. In other words, his current passing yards per game may be Manning's ceiling for yardage in a game, but that doesn't stop Peter from theorizing how Manning could break 6,000 yards...but who’d have ever thought throwing for 6,000 would be remotely possible so soon after 5,000 started getting hit?
(Peter King in early May) "Right now, Chris Davis is averaging a home run every third game. But let's say Chris Davis starts hitting a home run every game. That's almost 100 home runs for the season. Who would have thought a player could hit 100 home runs in a season?"
Matthew Stafford’s coming-of-age moment.
“SPIKE! SPIKE! SPIKE!”
We’ll get to that.
This is the second time Peter has said he would get to this. How about he just gets to it and stops the long preamble?
Certainly, this was not Stafford’s first big comeback. This was his 10th fourth-quarter comeback. But this one just felt different to me. Something about the high-tension accuracy and the big-boy decision he made with the game ticking away.
What felt different to Peter is this comeback happened just this past weekend and Peter has started to overreact to the NFL games that just occurred, so the immediacy of the comeback makes it feel different to Peter. Sure, Stafford came back from more points down on the road against the Cowboys a few years ago, but this comeback just happened! It's just so different!
Now :21, :20 … Stafford motioning to the offense to hustle up the field. “I was looking back, yelling for [left tackle] Riley Reiff to hurry up,’’ Stafford said … :19, :18 … Now motioning madly for Reiff to get in place, while also yelling “SPIKE” and giving the universal “spike’’ signal, the hand gesturing hard to the ground, over and over … Reiff in place, at :16.
“So I’m on the line, and everyone in the stadium thinks I’m spiking it, and that was the plan,’’ Stafford said. “The other 10 guys [on offense] thought I was too. I thought I was—but then I saw a couple of their guys, almost standing up, and I just had this thought: Maybe I could make it by sneaking, or just putting the ball over the line. Maybe that was our best chance.’’
Plus, Stafford didn't have enough room to just throw the ball up in the air to Calvin Johnson as he prefers to do, so he had to try something different.
But no timeouts left. Clock running. If Stafford failed, there was a chance he wouldn’t get another play off.
I believe Peter is being overdramatic here. If Stafford failed then he and his linemen could have gotten up and possibly spiked the football. It's not like they had run anywhere, they just had to get up, get the ball re-placed and then spike it. Maybe not, but "there was a chance" Stafford wouldn't get another play off. There's also a chance the Lions could have gotten another play off. Naturally, Peter chooses the more dramatic of the options.
So why? Why do it? Why not the fade to Johnson, who could win a jump ball against most of the Dallas defenders—shoot, against all of them? If it’s incomplete, another fade, or a rollout pass.
Because Stafford has matured, Peter. He's like completely mature now.
“You just feel it,’’ he said. “Hard to explain. You just go to the line and you feel it sometimes, and I just felt: Our best chance is me taking to the ball and diving it over. I mean, all we were was three inches from the end zone.”
Snap … :14 … Stafford takes the ball, grips it as tight as he can, and with much of the defensive line looking on impassively, he thrusts the ball clearly over the line and brings it back. Touchdown.
This was a great play, but the Lions had just run a play that ended near the goal line with 26 seconds left in the game. The Lions offensive linemen ran 22 yards in that time, got the ball set, and ran a play in 12 seconds. It's completely possible, and probably very likely, if Stafford's attempt to score failed the Lions would get another play off in the approximate 10 seconds left in the game. So Stafford's play was very smart, but also not quite the risk that Peter is so much wanting to make it out to be. Peter loves a little drama though.
I know how sportswriters love their narratives and love to see a group of events turn into a story, so "Matthew Stafford has matured" is the likely narrative to come out of this game. More likely nothing has changed and Stafford had a big game because Calvin Johnson had a fantastic game, while Stafford happened to also make a smart play to win the game for the Lions. I still think the comeback against the Cowboys on the road a couple of years ago was the better Stafford comeback. Of course, immediacy usually wins, so this Cowboys-Lions game had to have been a turning point for Stafford in his career.
In the past week, we at The MMQB have tried to take the head-trauma debate deeper, with 19 stories exploring ideas about a safer game, the realities of playing a violent game, and the complicated issues facing youth and high-school football today.
My takeaways from the series: It surprises me that parents—and we interviewed 23 of them who spoke this way—cede the decision to play or not play high-school football to their sons.
That has changed in the time since I was a (quite marginal) high-school athlete in Enfield, Conn. If my father and mother thought the sport I was playing was excessively dangerous, they’d have interceded and recommended and/or demanded I not play.
PETER'S PARENTS CARED ABOUT HIM MORE THAN PARENTS TODAY CARE ABOUT THEIR CHILDREN!
I understand wanting to empower your children, but I’m not sure empowering 15- and 16-year-olds who make decisions based very often on emotion is a smart call …
Because it appears the alternative is to intercede and run the risk of your child growing up to be a oft-pretentious sportswriter who expects no human being at any point to interfere with his perfect existence on the planet and feels the need to comment when he perceives someone isn't acting in the proper fashion while on a plane, train, or automobile.
Now for some reactions to the writing we did.
From the comments sections...
Getting reactions from people in the comment section from a widely read sports article is perhaps one of the most useless and futile exercises to get constructive feedback that a sportswriter could participate in, but here we go anyway...
From “branlishan:” “There is a non-stop assault on football by SI and its writers. We get it now. Football is dangerous. If football is such a barbaric sport then why do you cover the games and bring attention to the glory of it all? SI should stop with the hypocritical garbage. Either line up behind the ‘ban football’ crowd and stop covering a sport that is so dangerous, or shut up. Because this non-stop assault never ends.’’
I hate it when sportswriters provide a non-stop assault of facts they have discovered when investigating a topic. Stop with the facts and give me more filler!
From “decredico,” to me: “You sat on this story for years and under reported it and you are part of the package that kept this off the radar for many years. You are a disingenuous hypocrite that should be excoriated and excommunicated and banished to writing for the local garden section of a small town newspaper.’’
This is why you ignore the comments section. I write about Peter King every week, but come on, it's not his job nor is he qualified to do research on concussions and then report on it in-depth. Peter could do the reporting, but the story hasn't been researched for years, so there is no way Peter "sat" on the story. People are idiots.
From “hlmencken56:” “We’re just a country full of cowards now. Everyone is a victim, and nobody should ever get hurt, or the risks always must be lowered.”
This isn't constructive nor instructive. Clearly, this idiot has never played football nor dealt with a loved one that has a traumatic brain injury.
Now for emails THE MMQB received on the topic of concussions...
“I have been a fan of you and your MMQB column for seven or eight years now and never miss one. I was really looking forward to your new MMQB page and for the most part I have really enjoyed it. However lately I have not nearly enjoyed MMQB as much. I feel like I have been given a concussion by being beaten over the head with your concussion reports. Please go back to the reporting of fun football.
Yes, don't let reality infringe on the fun part of watching football. Ignore the negative, report the positive. Stick your head in the sand and ignore the problems. Brilliant, brilliant line of thought.
You don’t have to ignore concussions completely, but man I feel like you guys are trying to ruin something that I enjoy so very much.
It sounds like someone doesn't enjoy hearing about the physical problems his "fun" sport causes on the NFL players that makes the sport not-so-much fun after a player has retired.
It’s like if every time I eat something bad for me, my wife is standing behind me telling me that it’s going to kill me.”
—Brock
Well maybe it will kill you and you shouldn't eat it then. Why do I have the feeling Brock weighs about 400 pounds or has had multiple heart attacks, but refuses to change his eating habits? Clearly, he wants to stay in denial until he needs help, in which case he obviously wants someone to help him so he can get back to having "fun."
I'm getting way off topic, but Brock either needs to read and learn from the MMQB reports about concussions or ignore them entirely if he doesn't like the reality of what these reports say to him.
“As a parent with a 9-year old and 14-year old playing football, and as a coach and huge football fan, I think the real problem here is all the negative publicity that is causing unnecessary concern and alarm. I do believe that efforts must continue to be made through better equipment, medical supervision and education. However the media needs to stop talking about it. Parents should be talking about it, players should be talking about it, coaches should be talking about it, medical professionals need to be talking about it but the media needs to leave it alone!! If that happens, both the safety and future of the game will be protected!’’
—Kris, Abbotsford, British Columbia
So the media needs to quit talking about concussions and let parents, coaches, medical professionals, and players talk about concussions using the information provided by...who? Generally, if the media doesn't disseminate information about a topic it's not that easy to be provided information on that topic. If I'm a parent who wants to get information on concussions to decide whether to allow my child to play football or not, should I just starting calling medical professionals or go to youth league games to talk to random parents about concussions? This just seems nonsensical to say, "Hey, we should be talking about concussions, but not the sports media. The sports media should ignore concussions."
Fine Fifteen
Yep, still in seemingly random order and still too reliant upon what happened just this past week.
1. Kansas City (8-0). I debated putting the Chiefs here, after they struggled to beat Houston and Cleveland at home in the last eight days while others up top—the Niners in particular—have been strafing the league mercilessly.
But the Chiefs are undefeated. How can you pull an undefeated team from the top spot? Were the Chiefs impressive in not having lost any games just a week ago, but now they are unimpressive in winning games and that all of a sudden matters?
There are no style points in football, though, and the Chiefs are undefeated halfway through the season.
There are no style points?
3. San Francisco (6-2). Five straight wins by an average of 22.6 points. This team’s getting scary.
Peter says there are no style points, yet he places the 49ers above three one-win teams and quotes by how many points the 49ers have won their last five games. There are no style points, unless there are style points.
4. Denver (7-1). Why San Francisco over the Broncos? Because I trust the Niners defense right now. I don’t trust Denver’s nearly as much.
Plus, style points. Of course Denver's only loss came to the team that is #2 in Peter's Fine Fifteen, while the 49ers have lost to the #2 and #5 teams in Peter's Fine Fifteen. But of course, there's no style points yet Peter puts the 49ers above a team that has one fewer loss and beat the 49ers head-to-head.
9. New England (6-2). So flawed. So hard to read. So hard to think this is an impact team in January—but the defense, even without Wilfork/Mayo/Talib, is a competitive group with players like Logan Ryan who don’t know they’re not supposed to be making game-deciding plays.
When a sportswriter lacks the ability to quantify why a team is playing well, he/she just writes crap like saying a team has players "who don't know they aren't supposed to be making game-deciding plays," as if this really means anything.
10. Detroit (5-3). One premier team with one premier quarterback (Green Bay, Aaron Rodgers) left in the final eight games—unless you count Baltimore, which, right now, you can’t call a premier team. That’s why I like the Lions’ chances to be the NFC North champ or the sixth seed in the NFC tournament.
See? The Lions win an exciting game against a 4-4 team and all of a sudden Peter King thinks the Lions could win the NFC North. I'm guessing if the Lions won another exciting game then Peter will have the Lions in the Super Bowl, as long as another new, shiny team doesn't win an exciting game during Week 9 of course.
11. Carolina (4-3). You can talk about the maturation and improvement of Cam Newton, which is good and true. But this is a pretty stingy team. Panthers have allowed 12 per game in the last five.
They have beaten the Giants, Vikings, Buccaneers, and Rams. What do they all have in common? They are all not very good teams. A 4-3 record against crappy opponents sure must be impressive to Peter for Carolina to be #11 in his "Fine Fifteen."
15. Houston (2-5).
Call me crazy as I rank the Texans over Arizona, Tennessee and Baltimore (which owns a 21-point win over Houston). I say Case Keenum and that defense constitute a playoff threat still … even though Indy (twice) and Denver (once) remain to be played.
Peter thinks the Texans are a playoff threat, but as the seventh best team in the AFC at this current time he doesn't think the Texans will actually make the playoffs of course. Also, I'm not calling him crazy, but merely saying Peter is probably overly-excited about the Texans winning more games so Peter can write about J.J. Watt more.
Special Teams Player of the Week
Josh Brown, kicker, New York Giants. Not a great fan of the field goal per se (see Stat of the Week), but in the first 55 minutes at Philadelphia, these were the only points: Brown, 40-yard field goal; Brown, 44-yard field goal; Brown, 33-yard field goal; Brown, 46-yard field goal; Brown, 27-yard field goal.
Only Peter King would name a kicker the special teams player of the week in the same MMQB where he essentially says that field goals are becoming too easy for kickers to make. I guess he believes field goals are too easy to make, but not too easy for a field goal kicker who makes five field goals to impress Peter.
Goat of the Week
Shaun Suisham, kicker, Pittsburgh. Kickers this season are making 94 percent of their kicks from inside the 40-yard line. Suisham missed 34- and 32-yard field goals, veritable extra points in today’s games. The Steelers lost by three. Pretty easy call.
Because field goals are so easy to convert and kickers never have a bad day.
“You have to understand the beast that’s playing quarterback. Once a guy like that gets in front of the whole defense, he’s a legit 4.4. It’s real.”
—Pittsburgh safety Ryan Clark, after Oakland quarterback Terrelle Pryor ran for the longest touchdown in Oakland franchise history, 93 yards, in a 21-18 Raiders victory Sunday.
So now the Raiders just have to figure out a way to get Terrelle Pryor in front of the whole opposing defense and the Raiders offense will be unstoppable.
At some point, the NFL’s going to have to acknowledge the efficiency of field-goal kickers is just too good. And the league is either going to have to narrow the goalposts or put a different point value on field goals from different distances.
Don't you hate it when NFL kickers become too good at their jobs? Once a player gets too good, it's time to move the goal posts (literally and figuratively it seems).
This easy, as the season nears the midpoint:
From inside the 40-yard line: 230 of 245, 93.9%. From between the 40- and 49-yard line: 126 of 153, 82.4%.
Do we want the game to be so boring, to lack any suspense, when a kicker steps up to make a field goal?
Maybe Graham Gano just sucks, but I don't really think a field goal is a given when a kicker steps back to attempt one. I guess the percentages say a field goal is a pretty good bet when a kicker lines up for one, but I still don't feel like it is a given personally.
I can tell you the founding fathers
Yeah, George Washington and Benjamin Franklin would be pissed about the current state of field goal kicking in the NFL.
of this game never dreamed the kickers would be so great that they would be good on 87 percent of their field goals through nearly half a season.
Oh nevermind, the founding fathers of "this game" not of "this country."
I would imagine the founding fathers of football also didn't dream of a forward pass and quarterbacks putting up 500 yards passing in a game. I'm not disagreeing with Peter, just saying any change to the vision of the founding fathers isn't necessarily a bad change for the game of football.
Then Peter King remarks at how young Marcus Mariota is and says he wouldn't be able to legally drink a beer if he won an NFL game next year. Peter previously provided data showing how young Mariota is compared to other 2014 draft-eligible quarterbacks.
Mr. Starwood Preferred Member Travel Note of the Week
The MMQB’s Robert Klemko had to fly from Chicago to Detroit Sunday morning to cover Lions-Cowboys, and he reported this to me when he landed:
Apparently there is an edict sent out by Peter King that all THE MMQB staff members must report annoying travel-related details to him immediately.
“I get on this plane from Chicago to Detroit, and these Japanese people, five of them, boarded the plane all carrying different stuffed animals. A teddy bear in an Army uniform, another teddy bear in a pilot uniform. I’d say they were in their late 20s, early 30s. One of them was a guy, and his bear was dressed in an American desert camo uniform.
“They were clutching these animals as if they were children. So I am sitting amidst them. The flight is taking off, and they’re not panicked or anything—but they’re whispering things in Japanese to the bears as if they were children. Then they just held them for the rest of the flight.
Wait, so these five Japanese people held on the teddy bears and whispered things in Japanese ALL WHILE MINDING THEIR OWN FUCKING BUSINESS? It doesn't get much worse than that. How can anyone be expected to stare at random strangers and micro-criticize their behavior when there is such an obvious distraction right there in front of his/her face? I'm sure there was a man on the plane who blatantly chose to watch the same television show on repeat for the entire flight and Robert Klemko didn't get to comment on this guy's behavior because these five Japanese people were minding their own business and doing something Klemko considers to be weird.
“I mean, they were holding them like they were breathing, like they were babies. Maybe they want kids and they are practicing for it. I don’t know. But there is something strange going on there.”
Perhaps THE MMQB should do a full investigation and report back in MMQB next week. I would imagine if these Japanese people wanted children they wouldn't have teddy bears as replacement children, but I know it merits a mention in MMQB as opposed to any sort of in-depth research on this topic that could be done online.
“I miss holding a baby – all my little guys are old.”
—@BarrySanders.
Yes, that Barry Sanders.
I guess Peter looked to find the most bland Tweet of the Week to include in MMQB. I would hope it is "that" Barry Sanders, because otherwise I could care even less that some random dude named Barry Sanders misses holding a child.
Ten Things I Think I Think
1. I think this is what I liked about Week 8:
d. Take those trade rumors and stuff ‘em, Josh Gordon says with his play every week.
Actually every week Josh Gordon probably says, "I'm a very good wide receiver and a contending NFL team should definitely trade for me immediately" with his excellent play.
f. Thad Lewis, who is very tough.
Thad Lewis is tough. This is #analysis.
g. Look at that lunging touchdown catch by Dexter McCluster. What a talent he is, and he’s being used perfectly as an everything back by Andy Reid.
Dexter McCluster has been targeted in the passing game 40 times over 8 games and has caught 23 passes. McCluster has 5 rushing attempts for 10 yards. If Peter King says McCluster is being used perfectly, meaning a little over six times per game, then that's not exactly a compliment to McCluster's ability.
Come on, Peter says "what a talent McCluster is" and then says he is being used perfectly. The guy barely catches 50% of the passes thrown to him and has 263 offensive yards on the year. If I'm being generous and including his punt and kickoff returns McCluster has 653 total yards and two touchdowns on the season. He's a good punt returner, but he's not exactly the offensive talent that Peter King seems to think he is.
h. Kevin Ogletree, who ran 70 yards to chase down Sean Lee on the Cowboys.
Or as Gregg Easterbrook will say, "the undrafted, unwanted hard-working Kevin Ogletree chased down the highly-drafted glory boy second-round pick Sean Lee."
2. I think this is what I didn’t like about Week 8:
d. Garrett Hartley, doinking a makeable field goal on the Saints’ first drive.
I guess from now on anytime a field goal kicker misses a field goal from 40 yards or less then Peter King will call that field goal "makeable" and criticize the kicker for missing it. Great, there's no way I could be less enthused about this new development.
e. The normally accurate Alex Smith, overthrowing a wide-open Anthony Fasano in the end zone, forcing Kansas City to settle for a field goal in the first quarter against Cleveland.
24th in the NFL in completion percentage. I guess that's "normally accurate."
a. Tom Brady, throwing behind Rob Gronkowski and getting picked by cornerback Dimitri Patterson (a very good Jeff Ireland offseason pickup), leading to Miami’s first touchdown.
f. Geez, Tom Brady: It’s so bad you’re throwing to Rob Gronkowski in triple coverage? The good side: Officials gave the Patriots a gift defensive pass interference call on the play.
Peter King does not like it when Tom Brady passes the football to Rob Gronkowski.
j. Why, oh why, Chip Kelly, when you’re one score behind with four minutes to go, your defense playing well and three timeouts left do you onside kick?
Because fortune favors the bold! Because Chip Kelly was inspiring the Eagles to win by saying he was trying to win the game with an onside kick. You know Gregg Easterbrook is going to leave out Chip Kelly's bold move to go for an onside kick from his TMQ, even though Gregg has said a surprise onside kick is a good idea and plays like this tell a team the coach is playing to win the game. If Gregg does mention that Kelly went for an onside kick, I'm sure he'll suggest the kicker should have done a little dance before kicking the ball to throw the defense off.
6. I think for a fully healthy Peterson to have 36 carries in the last three weeks, with Minnesota struggling so much at quarterback, is absurd.
Yeah, but Josh Freeman and Christian Ponder need to be able to sling the ball around the field a little don't you know?
7. I think there are so many teams that could use Cleveland wideout Josh Gordon, so many receiver-needy contenders,
BREAKING NEWS: Many NFL teams could use a talented wide receiver on their roster.
I realize Gordon could be a positive substance test away from a lengthy suspension, but if I’m the Patriots, and I still have my full load of 2014 picks, I’d offer Cleveland a fourth-round pick that could conditionally upgrade to a third- depending on performance and try to get Gordon.
Josh Gordon is signed through 2014 and is very cheap. I'm sure the Browns would be more than willing to trade Josh Gordon for a 3rd/4th round draft pick. It's not like the Browns got a 1st round pick for Trent Richardson or anything, so I'm sure they would accept a lesser pick for a more talented player who is cheaper.
8. I think the Eagles have to be the disappointment of the season. The offense in particular.
I guess the Eagles are a disappointment depending on how much exactly was expected of them based entirely on Chip Kelly being the head coach.
A Chip Kelly team first and foremost has to have consistency and efficiency at quarterback, and Philadelphia hasn’t had that all season.
Nearly every NFL team needs consistency and efficiency at the quarterback position to succeed. The Eagles and Chip Kelly's offense aren't the only ones who need this.
10. I think these are my non-football thoughts of the week:
b. Memo to Darren Rovell (said with slight annoyance): The Riddell helmet/NFL divorce you wrote about, a story that was written by Jenny Vrentas of The MMQB on TheMMQB.com last Tuesday, was not written on SI.com, as you reported. It’s The MMQB.
Memo to Peter King (with a know-it-all attitude): This is what happens when you name your site THE MMQB and write a column called MMQB that used to appear on CNNSI.com. If you wanted to brand your new website in the best possible way, brand it to avoid confusion and not in a way that reminds the uninformed that there used to be a column posted on CNNSI.com that is called the exact same thing as your new website. Sure, I don't like Darren Rovell and he should have known this, but these are the things that happen when you confuse readers with the name of your new website that also happens to be the same name of a column you write for the new website that also appears on CNNSI.com.
c. Nothing against SI.com; I love SI.com. This column runs on SI.com at well as The MMQB. But the story was not written on SI.com.
And oh yeah, don't be upset when a person doesn't know exactly which site something posted on THE MMQB comes from when it is posted on CNNSI.com also. As I write this, the front page of CNNSI.com shows this very MMQB column and the link for THE MMQB has SI.com in the url. So, it's not hard to see where confusion can happen.
d. Thanks, Florence and the Machine, for “Shake It Out.” That’s my song of the week.
I'm sure they wrote the song just for you.
h. The obstruction call (he said through gritted teeth), though a stupid rule because umpires cannot use interpretation, was called correctly to end Game 3.
I know Red Sox fans will kill me for saying this, but even if the umpires could use interpretation I could see an argument that Middlebrooks meant to trip Allen Craig. If you watch the replay then you notice as he falls to the ground trying to catch the errant throw Middlebrooks' legs go up in the air. Then he lowers his legs and raises them again as Craig tries to run over him. Since Middlebrooks legs actually came back in the air after they were on the ground and just happened to be raised again as Allen Craig tried to run in the baseline, I could see where umpires could interpret intent to trip Allen Craig. Upon seeing the replay a few times, it seemed odd to me that Middlebrooks' legs went down on the ground and then happened to raise back up when Craig tried to run in the baseline over him.
j. Quote of the Series, from Jonny Gomes to Marc Topkin of the Tampa Bay Times, concerning the fact that he was only in the lineup Sunday night because Shane Victorino’s back tightened up and forced him to the bench, giving Gomes the chance to hit the game-winning three-run home run: “I had to ‘Tonya Harding’ Victorino.”
k. Google or Bing “Tonya Harding” if that one slips past you.
Sure, just as soon as you Google or Bing "Wally Pipp."
n. Beernerdness: Also had the good fortune to be at Game 2 of the Series on Thursday, and was nearly as lucky to be back in my favorite old neighborhood restaurant Picco, in Boston’s South End. Very good beer menu. Tried the Star Island Single, a Belgian ale from Smuttynose in New Hampshire, and it was almost like a light ale. Okay, and eminently drinkable, but not memorable.
This wasn't a memorable beer, yet Peter remembers the name of the beer, who made the beer, what kind of beer it tasted like and also remembers enough of the taste to give a review on whether he liked the beer or not.
Who I Like Tonight
Seattle 33, St. Louis 10. Bet you thought I’d say, “Boston 4, St. Louis 3,” didn’t you?
Nope, I didn't.
I'm not including the Adieu Haiku, because it is a haiku and a bad joke. It's a reference to the "illegal bat" call in the Patriots-Dolphins game. Fine, here it is.
I have always thought
the home for illegal bats
was in the belfry.
I bet you feel dumber having read that.
Two months down, two to go. Time flies when you’re having fun. The Lions had some fun Sunday, and the resurgent Staffords will lead the column …
So I guess since the Lions won a game this past weekend over Dallas this means the Bears and Packers going to be fighting for a Wild Card spot after the Lions win the NFC North division.
but some headlines first:
Absolutely not. Let's talk about how Stafford is a great quarterback now based on the fact he made a really heads-up play at the end of the game on Sunday, had as many turnovers as touchdowns and threw for 488 yards with 329 of those yards going to one receiver.
Mike Pouncey might want to get lawyered up. As Pete Thamel and Greg A. Bedard reported Sunday night, the Massachusetts state police served the Miami Dolphins center with a Grand Jury subpoena after his game in Foxboro Sunday. “What’s this about?’’ Pouncey said when a gray-suited officer handed him the papers. It created a strange scene outside the Dolphins’ locker room at Gillette Stadium, with stunned team officials totally blindsided. Pouncey, too, evidently had no idea what was coming.
I think it would be fair to say the officer "pounced" on him, no?
Just like Clark Griswold’s Jelly of the Month Club present, the Kansas City quarterback brought more joy to two fan bases Sunday. In lifting the Chiefs to a 23-17 victory over Cleveland at home, Smith continued KC’s perfect (8-0) season.
Alex Smith continued the Chiefs perfect season by holding the Browns to 340 total yards and accumulating a massive 331 yards for the Chiefs offense. He's a winning winner who only wins. He's an efficient quarterback, as seen by his completion percentage of 59.1% which is good for 24th in the NFL, his yards per attempt of 6.28 which is good for 29th in the NFL, his quarterback rating of 82.1 which is good for 18th in the NFL, and his yards per game passing of 224 which is good for 23rd in the NFL. Smith has done all of this against such difficult teams like the Jags, Texans, Eagles, Giants, Titans, Raiders and Browns. Smith has been his usual average self against some really below-average competition, so kudos to him.
If you can't see through all that sarcasm, I think the Chiefs are a paper tiger. I had them at 9 wins before the season began and I think I was wrong about that number, but playing Denver and San Diego twice, along with a game against the Colts is going to tell me how good the Chiefs really are. Hey, I could be wrong and the Chiefs are one of the two best teams in the AFC, but I think the second half of the season isn't going to be as kind to Alex Smith and the Chiefs.
The original trade was Smith for a second-round pick in 2013 and a third-rounder in 2014 … but the third- in ’14 would become a second- if the Chiefs won eight games or more this season. That happened by mid-afternoon Sunday, as the Niners were trudging off the field at Wembley Stadium in London after whipping Jacksonville 42-10. As if San Francisco draft guru Trent Baalke needed more ammo, he now could be looking at six picks in the first three rounds next May:
Take that, Gregg Easterbrook, Mr. "The 49ers should have kept Alex Smith." As Alex Smith wins game for the Chiefs he helps the 49ers get a higher draft pick.
This just in: Calvin Johnson’s good. He had a nice month in three hours Sunday at Ford Field in Detroit’s 31-30 shocker of Dallas: 14 catches, 329 yards (seven short of the all-time single-game record), one touchdown.
I would love to know what kind of quarterback Matthew Stafford would be if he didn't have Calvin Johnson out there catching the ball for him. I know it's not fair to wonder that since Stafford does have Johnson and if you took any quarterback's best receiver away he wouldn't play as well, but so much of Stafford's success lies in having Johnson out there. Stafford's worst games of the season were when Johnson wasn't healthy. I probably have no point.
Remember the good ol’ days? Way back in the first half of the first game of the season, when the Chip Kelly offense was all the rage?
No Peter, but I remember all summer when you were up Chip Kelly's ass about how he ran his practices and talked about how the Eagles are doing things SO MUCH differently than every other NFL coach does things. I remember when you said the Chip Kelly hiring was the biggest hiring from the college ranks since Jimmy Johnson. I also remember when I stupidly bought into the crap you and your fellow sportswriters were peddling and predicted the Eagles would win the NFC East.
There’s some thought that because there is no “home” team in England, and selling a bad Jacksonville team (the Jags will play a game there in 2014, ’15 and ’16 at least) will be problematic right now, a good option is every team alternating. Of course, that won’t be a good option the minute you tell a Packers, Steelers, Broncos or Seahawks fan he or she has to lose a home game for the sake of expansionism.
Actually that won't be a good option for the fans of any NFL team who loses a home game for the sake of expansionism. I'll be damned if I want my favorite team to have seven home games because Roger Goodell insists on expanding to London.
But as one league operative told me recently: “If you guys [NBC, where I also work] can get 850,000 viewers for a Manchester United game on NBC Sports Network, why can’t we build a block of fans like that for football over there?”
Fine, build a block of fans in England, but don't take away home games to build that block. That's like if Manchester United lost a home soccer match and played here in the United States every year. Fuck that. The NFL can do whatever it wants to build a fan base in England, that's great, but NFL fans are already getting ripped off for two shitty preseason games, so they don't deserve to lose another home game for the sake of the NFL trying to expand. Show the games in England to build a fan base, don't take away home games from NFL teams. I know my opinion is probably in the minority.
Greg Jennings in the Revenge Game: One catch, nine yards, left the locker room before the media arrived following Green Bay’s 44-31 win at Minnesota last night. That’s 264 yards fewer than teammate Cordarrelle Patterson put on the board.
Poor Greg Jennings. It's so hard to be a great receiver when your quarterbacks all suck. Perhaps next time before Jennings runs his mouth about Aaron Rodgers he should find out if any of the quarterbacks on his Vikings team are any good or not.
I wrote last year about the possibility of a quarterback, in the not-too-distant future, throwing for 6,000 yards in a season. Aaron Rodgers, I theorized, would have the best shot. I’m not saying Peyton Manning’s going to do it this year, but let’s acknowledge the greatness of the first-half MVP here. In Denver’s 7-1 start,
It's a shame the Broncos are going to be getting a wild card in the AFC after starting out 7-1. At least Peter had the Broncos getting a wild card and the Chiefs winning the AFC West last week, perhaps Peter seen something shiny this week and has changed his opinion on this in the seven whole days since he last wrote MMQB. I'm sure as soon as the Chiefs lose, Peter will put the Broncos right back on top of the AFC West.
But let’s say he adds one medium-range skinny post per game in the final eight games. Say, an extra gain of 20 per game. If Manning averages 385 yards per game in his final eight, he’ll hit 6,000.
Of course Peter is ignoring the fact Manning could already be throwing for his peak amount of yardage right now. In other words, his current passing yards per game may be Manning's ceiling for yardage in a game, but that doesn't stop Peter from theorizing how Manning could break 6,000 yards...but who’d have ever thought throwing for 6,000 would be remotely possible so soon after 5,000 started getting hit?
(Peter King in early May) "Right now, Chris Davis is averaging a home run every third game. But let's say Chris Davis starts hitting a home run every game. That's almost 100 home runs for the season. Who would have thought a player could hit 100 home runs in a season?"
Matthew Stafford’s coming-of-age moment.
“SPIKE! SPIKE! SPIKE!”
We’ll get to that.
This is the second time Peter has said he would get to this. How about he just gets to it and stops the long preamble?
Certainly, this was not Stafford’s first big comeback. This was his 10th fourth-quarter comeback. But this one just felt different to me. Something about the high-tension accuracy and the big-boy decision he made with the game ticking away.
What felt different to Peter is this comeback happened just this past weekend and Peter has started to overreact to the NFL games that just occurred, so the immediacy of the comeback makes it feel different to Peter. Sure, Stafford came back from more points down on the road against the Cowboys a few years ago, but this comeback just happened! It's just so different!
Now :21, :20 … Stafford motioning to the offense to hustle up the field. “I was looking back, yelling for [left tackle] Riley Reiff to hurry up,’’ Stafford said … :19, :18 … Now motioning madly for Reiff to get in place, while also yelling “SPIKE” and giving the universal “spike’’ signal, the hand gesturing hard to the ground, over and over … Reiff in place, at :16.
“So I’m on the line, and everyone in the stadium thinks I’m spiking it, and that was the plan,’’ Stafford said. “The other 10 guys [on offense] thought I was too. I thought I was—but then I saw a couple of their guys, almost standing up, and I just had this thought: Maybe I could make it by sneaking, or just putting the ball over the line. Maybe that was our best chance.’’
Plus, Stafford didn't have enough room to just throw the ball up in the air to Calvin Johnson as he prefers to do, so he had to try something different.
But no timeouts left. Clock running. If Stafford failed, there was a chance he wouldn’t get another play off.
I believe Peter is being overdramatic here. If Stafford failed then he and his linemen could have gotten up and possibly spiked the football. It's not like they had run anywhere, they just had to get up, get the ball re-placed and then spike it. Maybe not, but "there was a chance" Stafford wouldn't get another play off. There's also a chance the Lions could have gotten another play off. Naturally, Peter chooses the more dramatic of the options.
So why? Why do it? Why not the fade to Johnson, who could win a jump ball against most of the Dallas defenders—shoot, against all of them? If it’s incomplete, another fade, or a rollout pass.
Because Stafford has matured, Peter. He's like completely mature now.
“You just feel it,’’ he said. “Hard to explain. You just go to the line and you feel it sometimes, and I just felt: Our best chance is me taking to the ball and diving it over. I mean, all we were was three inches from the end zone.”
Snap … :14 … Stafford takes the ball, grips it as tight as he can, and with much of the defensive line looking on impassively, he thrusts the ball clearly over the line and brings it back. Touchdown.
This was a great play, but the Lions had just run a play that ended near the goal line with 26 seconds left in the game. The Lions offensive linemen ran 22 yards in that time, got the ball set, and ran a play in 12 seconds. It's completely possible, and probably very likely, if Stafford's attempt to score failed the Lions would get another play off in the approximate 10 seconds left in the game. So Stafford's play was very smart, but also not quite the risk that Peter is so much wanting to make it out to be. Peter loves a little drama though.
I know how sportswriters love their narratives and love to see a group of events turn into a story, so "Matthew Stafford has matured" is the likely narrative to come out of this game. More likely nothing has changed and Stafford had a big game because Calvin Johnson had a fantastic game, while Stafford happened to also make a smart play to win the game for the Lions. I still think the comeback against the Cowboys on the road a couple of years ago was the better Stafford comeback. Of course, immediacy usually wins, so this Cowboys-Lions game had to have been a turning point for Stafford in his career.
In the past week, we at The MMQB have tried to take the head-trauma debate deeper, with 19 stories exploring ideas about a safer game, the realities of playing a violent game, and the complicated issues facing youth and high-school football today.
My takeaways from the series: It surprises me that parents—and we interviewed 23 of them who spoke this way—cede the decision to play or not play high-school football to their sons.
That has changed in the time since I was a (quite marginal) high-school athlete in Enfield, Conn. If my father and mother thought the sport I was playing was excessively dangerous, they’d have interceded and recommended and/or demanded I not play.
PETER'S PARENTS CARED ABOUT HIM MORE THAN PARENTS TODAY CARE ABOUT THEIR CHILDREN!
I understand wanting to empower your children, but I’m not sure empowering 15- and 16-year-olds who make decisions based very often on emotion is a smart call …
Because it appears the alternative is to intercede and run the risk of your child growing up to be a oft-pretentious sportswriter who expects no human being at any point to interfere with his perfect existence on the planet and feels the need to comment when he perceives someone isn't acting in the proper fashion while on a plane, train, or automobile.
Now for some reactions to the writing we did.
From the comments sections...
Getting reactions from people in the comment section from a widely read sports article is perhaps one of the most useless and futile exercises to get constructive feedback that a sportswriter could participate in, but here we go anyway...
From “branlishan:” “There is a non-stop assault on football by SI and its writers. We get it now. Football is dangerous. If football is such a barbaric sport then why do you cover the games and bring attention to the glory of it all? SI should stop with the hypocritical garbage. Either line up behind the ‘ban football’ crowd and stop covering a sport that is so dangerous, or shut up. Because this non-stop assault never ends.’’
I hate it when sportswriters provide a non-stop assault of facts they have discovered when investigating a topic. Stop with the facts and give me more filler!
From “decredico,” to me: “You sat on this story for years and under reported it and you are part of the package that kept this off the radar for many years. You are a disingenuous hypocrite that should be excoriated and excommunicated and banished to writing for the local garden section of a small town newspaper.’’
This is why you ignore the comments section. I write about Peter King every week, but come on, it's not his job nor is he qualified to do research on concussions and then report on it in-depth. Peter could do the reporting, but the story hasn't been researched for years, so there is no way Peter "sat" on the story. People are idiots.
From “hlmencken56:” “We’re just a country full of cowards now. Everyone is a victim, and nobody should ever get hurt, or the risks always must be lowered.”
This isn't constructive nor instructive. Clearly, this idiot has never played football nor dealt with a loved one that has a traumatic brain injury.
Now for emails THE MMQB received on the topic of concussions...
“I have been a fan of you and your MMQB column for seven or eight years now and never miss one. I was really looking forward to your new MMQB page and for the most part I have really enjoyed it. However lately I have not nearly enjoyed MMQB as much. I feel like I have been given a concussion by being beaten over the head with your concussion reports. Please go back to the reporting of fun football.
Yes, don't let reality infringe on the fun part of watching football. Ignore the negative, report the positive. Stick your head in the sand and ignore the problems. Brilliant, brilliant line of thought.
You don’t have to ignore concussions completely, but man I feel like you guys are trying to ruin something that I enjoy so very much.
It sounds like someone doesn't enjoy hearing about the physical problems his "fun" sport causes on the NFL players that makes the sport not-so-much fun after a player has retired.
It’s like if every time I eat something bad for me, my wife is standing behind me telling me that it’s going to kill me.”
—Brock
Well maybe it will kill you and you shouldn't eat it then. Why do I have the feeling Brock weighs about 400 pounds or has had multiple heart attacks, but refuses to change his eating habits? Clearly, he wants to stay in denial until he needs help, in which case he obviously wants someone to help him so he can get back to having "fun."
I'm getting way off topic, but Brock either needs to read and learn from the MMQB reports about concussions or ignore them entirely if he doesn't like the reality of what these reports say to him.
“As a parent with a 9-year old and 14-year old playing football, and as a coach and huge football fan, I think the real problem here is all the negative publicity that is causing unnecessary concern and alarm. I do believe that efforts must continue to be made through better equipment, medical supervision and education. However the media needs to stop talking about it. Parents should be talking about it, players should be talking about it, coaches should be talking about it, medical professionals need to be talking about it but the media needs to leave it alone!! If that happens, both the safety and future of the game will be protected!’’
—Kris, Abbotsford, British Columbia
So the media needs to quit talking about concussions and let parents, coaches, medical professionals, and players talk about concussions using the information provided by...who? Generally, if the media doesn't disseminate information about a topic it's not that easy to be provided information on that topic. If I'm a parent who wants to get information on concussions to decide whether to allow my child to play football or not, should I just starting calling medical professionals or go to youth league games to talk to random parents about concussions? This just seems nonsensical to say, "Hey, we should be talking about concussions, but not the sports media. The sports media should ignore concussions."
Fine Fifteen
Yep, still in seemingly random order and still too reliant upon what happened just this past week.
1. Kansas City (8-0). I debated putting the Chiefs here, after they struggled to beat Houston and Cleveland at home in the last eight days while others up top—the Niners in particular—have been strafing the league mercilessly.
But the Chiefs are undefeated. How can you pull an undefeated team from the top spot? Were the Chiefs impressive in not having lost any games just a week ago, but now they are unimpressive in winning games and that all of a sudden matters?
There are no style points in football, though, and the Chiefs are undefeated halfway through the season.
There are no style points?
3. San Francisco (6-2). Five straight wins by an average of 22.6 points. This team’s getting scary.
Peter says there are no style points, yet he places the 49ers above three one-win teams and quotes by how many points the 49ers have won their last five games. There are no style points, unless there are style points.
4. Denver (7-1). Why San Francisco over the Broncos? Because I trust the Niners defense right now. I don’t trust Denver’s nearly as much.
Plus, style points. Of course Denver's only loss came to the team that is #2 in Peter's Fine Fifteen, while the 49ers have lost to the #2 and #5 teams in Peter's Fine Fifteen. But of course, there's no style points yet Peter puts the 49ers above a team that has one fewer loss and beat the 49ers head-to-head.
9. New England (6-2). So flawed. So hard to read. So hard to think this is an impact team in January—but the defense, even without Wilfork/Mayo/Talib, is a competitive group with players like Logan Ryan who don’t know they’re not supposed to be making game-deciding plays.
When a sportswriter lacks the ability to quantify why a team is playing well, he/she just writes crap like saying a team has players "who don't know they aren't supposed to be making game-deciding plays," as if this really means anything.
10. Detroit (5-3). One premier team with one premier quarterback (Green Bay, Aaron Rodgers) left in the final eight games—unless you count Baltimore, which, right now, you can’t call a premier team. That’s why I like the Lions’ chances to be the NFC North champ or the sixth seed in the NFC tournament.
See? The Lions win an exciting game against a 4-4 team and all of a sudden Peter King thinks the Lions could win the NFC North. I'm guessing if the Lions won another exciting game then Peter will have the Lions in the Super Bowl, as long as another new, shiny team doesn't win an exciting game during Week 9 of course.
11. Carolina (4-3). You can talk about the maturation and improvement of Cam Newton, which is good and true. But this is a pretty stingy team. Panthers have allowed 12 per game in the last five.
They have beaten the Giants, Vikings, Buccaneers, and Rams. What do they all have in common? They are all not very good teams. A 4-3 record against crappy opponents sure must be impressive to Peter for Carolina to be #11 in his "Fine Fifteen."
15. Houston (2-5).
Call me crazy as I rank the Texans over Arizona, Tennessee and Baltimore (which owns a 21-point win over Houston). I say Case Keenum and that defense constitute a playoff threat still … even though Indy (twice) and Denver (once) remain to be played.
Peter thinks the Texans are a playoff threat, but as the seventh best team in the AFC at this current time he doesn't think the Texans will actually make the playoffs of course. Also, I'm not calling him crazy, but merely saying Peter is probably overly-excited about the Texans winning more games so Peter can write about J.J. Watt more.
Special Teams Player of the Week
Josh Brown, kicker, New York Giants. Not a great fan of the field goal per se (see Stat of the Week), but in the first 55 minutes at Philadelphia, these were the only points: Brown, 40-yard field goal; Brown, 44-yard field goal; Brown, 33-yard field goal; Brown, 46-yard field goal; Brown, 27-yard field goal.
Only Peter King would name a kicker the special teams player of the week in the same MMQB where he essentially says that field goals are becoming too easy for kickers to make. I guess he believes field goals are too easy to make, but not too easy for a field goal kicker who makes five field goals to impress Peter.
Goat of the Week
Shaun Suisham, kicker, Pittsburgh. Kickers this season are making 94 percent of their kicks from inside the 40-yard line. Suisham missed 34- and 32-yard field goals, veritable extra points in today’s games. The Steelers lost by three. Pretty easy call.
Because field goals are so easy to convert and kickers never have a bad day.
“You have to understand the beast that’s playing quarterback. Once a guy like that gets in front of the whole defense, he’s a legit 4.4. It’s real.”
—Pittsburgh safety Ryan Clark, after Oakland quarterback Terrelle Pryor ran for the longest touchdown in Oakland franchise history, 93 yards, in a 21-18 Raiders victory Sunday.
So now the Raiders just have to figure out a way to get Terrelle Pryor in front of the whole opposing defense and the Raiders offense will be unstoppable.
At some point, the NFL’s going to have to acknowledge the efficiency of field-goal kickers is just too good. And the league is either going to have to narrow the goalposts or put a different point value on field goals from different distances.
Don't you hate it when NFL kickers become too good at their jobs? Once a player gets too good, it's time to move the goal posts (literally and figuratively it seems).
This easy, as the season nears the midpoint:
From inside the 40-yard line: 230 of 245, 93.9%. From between the 40- and 49-yard line: 126 of 153, 82.4%.
Do we want the game to be so boring, to lack any suspense, when a kicker steps up to make a field goal?
Maybe Graham Gano just sucks, but I don't really think a field goal is a given when a kicker steps back to attempt one. I guess the percentages say a field goal is a pretty good bet when a kicker lines up for one, but I still don't feel like it is a given personally.
I can tell you the founding fathers
Yeah, George Washington and Benjamin Franklin would be pissed about the current state of field goal kicking in the NFL.
of this game never dreamed the kickers would be so great that they would be good on 87 percent of their field goals through nearly half a season.
Oh nevermind, the founding fathers of "this game" not of "this country."
I would imagine the founding fathers of football also didn't dream of a forward pass and quarterbacks putting up 500 yards passing in a game. I'm not disagreeing with Peter, just saying any change to the vision of the founding fathers isn't necessarily a bad change for the game of football.
Then Peter King remarks at how young Marcus Mariota is and says he wouldn't be able to legally drink a beer if he won an NFL game next year. Peter previously provided data showing how young Mariota is compared to other 2014 draft-eligible quarterbacks.
Mr. Starwood Preferred Member Travel Note of the Week
The MMQB’s Robert Klemko had to fly from Chicago to Detroit Sunday morning to cover Lions-Cowboys, and he reported this to me when he landed:
Apparently there is an edict sent out by Peter King that all THE MMQB staff members must report annoying travel-related details to him immediately.
“I get on this plane from Chicago to Detroit, and these Japanese people, five of them, boarded the plane all carrying different stuffed animals. A teddy bear in an Army uniform, another teddy bear in a pilot uniform. I’d say they were in their late 20s, early 30s. One of them was a guy, and his bear was dressed in an American desert camo uniform.
“They were clutching these animals as if they were children. So I am sitting amidst them. The flight is taking off, and they’re not panicked or anything—but they’re whispering things in Japanese to the bears as if they were children. Then they just held them for the rest of the flight.
Wait, so these five Japanese people held on the teddy bears and whispered things in Japanese ALL WHILE MINDING THEIR OWN FUCKING BUSINESS? It doesn't get much worse than that. How can anyone be expected to stare at random strangers and micro-criticize their behavior when there is such an obvious distraction right there in front of his/her face? I'm sure there was a man on the plane who blatantly chose to watch the same television show on repeat for the entire flight and Robert Klemko didn't get to comment on this guy's behavior because these five Japanese people were minding their own business and doing something Klemko considers to be weird.
“I mean, they were holding them like they were breathing, like they were babies. Maybe they want kids and they are practicing for it. I don’t know. But there is something strange going on there.”
Perhaps THE MMQB should do a full investigation and report back in MMQB next week. I would imagine if these Japanese people wanted children they wouldn't have teddy bears as replacement children, but I know it merits a mention in MMQB as opposed to any sort of in-depth research on this topic that could be done online.
“I miss holding a baby – all my little guys are old.”
—@BarrySanders.
Yes, that Barry Sanders.
I guess Peter looked to find the most bland Tweet of the Week to include in MMQB. I would hope it is "that" Barry Sanders, because otherwise I could care even less that some random dude named Barry Sanders misses holding a child.
Ten Things I Think I Think
1. I think this is what I liked about Week 8:
d. Take those trade rumors and stuff ‘em, Josh Gordon says with his play every week.
Actually every week Josh Gordon probably says, "I'm a very good wide receiver and a contending NFL team should definitely trade for me immediately" with his excellent play.
f. Thad Lewis, who is very tough.
Thad Lewis is tough. This is #analysis.
g. Look at that lunging touchdown catch by Dexter McCluster. What a talent he is, and he’s being used perfectly as an everything back by Andy Reid.
Dexter McCluster has been targeted in the passing game 40 times over 8 games and has caught 23 passes. McCluster has 5 rushing attempts for 10 yards. If Peter King says McCluster is being used perfectly, meaning a little over six times per game, then that's not exactly a compliment to McCluster's ability.
Come on, Peter says "what a talent McCluster is" and then says he is being used perfectly. The guy barely catches 50% of the passes thrown to him and has 263 offensive yards on the year. If I'm being generous and including his punt and kickoff returns McCluster has 653 total yards and two touchdowns on the season. He's a good punt returner, but he's not exactly the offensive talent that Peter King seems to think he is.
h. Kevin Ogletree, who ran 70 yards to chase down Sean Lee on the Cowboys.
Or as Gregg Easterbrook will say, "the undrafted, unwanted hard-working Kevin Ogletree chased down the highly-drafted glory boy second-round pick Sean Lee."
2. I think this is what I didn’t like about Week 8:
d. Garrett Hartley, doinking a makeable field goal on the Saints’ first drive.
I guess from now on anytime a field goal kicker misses a field goal from 40 yards or less then Peter King will call that field goal "makeable" and criticize the kicker for missing it. Great, there's no way I could be less enthused about this new development.
e. The normally accurate Alex Smith, overthrowing a wide-open Anthony Fasano in the end zone, forcing Kansas City to settle for a field goal in the first quarter against Cleveland.
24th in the NFL in completion percentage. I guess that's "normally accurate."
a. Tom Brady, throwing behind Rob Gronkowski and getting picked by cornerback Dimitri Patterson (a very good Jeff Ireland offseason pickup), leading to Miami’s first touchdown.
f. Geez, Tom Brady: It’s so bad you’re throwing to Rob Gronkowski in triple coverage? The good side: Officials gave the Patriots a gift defensive pass interference call on the play.
Peter King does not like it when Tom Brady passes the football to Rob Gronkowski.
j. Why, oh why, Chip Kelly, when you’re one score behind with four minutes to go, your defense playing well and three timeouts left do you onside kick?
Because fortune favors the bold! Because Chip Kelly was inspiring the Eagles to win by saying he was trying to win the game with an onside kick. You know Gregg Easterbrook is going to leave out Chip Kelly's bold move to go for an onside kick from his TMQ, even though Gregg has said a surprise onside kick is a good idea and plays like this tell a team the coach is playing to win the game. If Gregg does mention that Kelly went for an onside kick, I'm sure he'll suggest the kicker should have done a little dance before kicking the ball to throw the defense off.
6. I think for a fully healthy Peterson to have 36 carries in the last three weeks, with Minnesota struggling so much at quarterback, is absurd.
Yeah, but Josh Freeman and Christian Ponder need to be able to sling the ball around the field a little don't you know?
7. I think there are so many teams that could use Cleveland wideout Josh Gordon, so many receiver-needy contenders,
BREAKING NEWS: Many NFL teams could use a talented wide receiver on their roster.
I realize Gordon could be a positive substance test away from a lengthy suspension, but if I’m the Patriots, and I still have my full load of 2014 picks, I’d offer Cleveland a fourth-round pick that could conditionally upgrade to a third- depending on performance and try to get Gordon.
Josh Gordon is signed through 2014 and is very cheap. I'm sure the Browns would be more than willing to trade Josh Gordon for a 3rd/4th round draft pick. It's not like the Browns got a 1st round pick for Trent Richardson or anything, so I'm sure they would accept a lesser pick for a more talented player who is cheaper.
8. I think the Eagles have to be the disappointment of the season. The offense in particular.
I guess the Eagles are a disappointment depending on how much exactly was expected of them based entirely on Chip Kelly being the head coach.
A Chip Kelly team first and foremost has to have consistency and efficiency at quarterback, and Philadelphia hasn’t had that all season.
Nearly every NFL team needs consistency and efficiency at the quarterback position to succeed. The Eagles and Chip Kelly's offense aren't the only ones who need this.
10. I think these are my non-football thoughts of the week:
b. Memo to Darren Rovell (said with slight annoyance): The Riddell helmet/NFL divorce you wrote about, a story that was written by Jenny Vrentas of The MMQB on TheMMQB.com last Tuesday, was not written on SI.com, as you reported. It’s The MMQB.
Memo to Peter King (with a know-it-all attitude): This is what happens when you name your site THE MMQB and write a column called MMQB that used to appear on CNNSI.com. If you wanted to brand your new website in the best possible way, brand it to avoid confusion and not in a way that reminds the uninformed that there used to be a column posted on CNNSI.com that is called the exact same thing as your new website. Sure, I don't like Darren Rovell and he should have known this, but these are the things that happen when you confuse readers with the name of your new website that also happens to be the same name of a column you write for the new website that also appears on CNNSI.com.
c. Nothing against SI.com; I love SI.com. This column runs on SI.com at well as The MMQB. But the story was not written on SI.com.
And oh yeah, don't be upset when a person doesn't know exactly which site something posted on THE MMQB comes from when it is posted on CNNSI.com also. As I write this, the front page of CNNSI.com shows this very MMQB column and the link for THE MMQB has SI.com in the url. So, it's not hard to see where confusion can happen.
d. Thanks, Florence and the Machine, for “Shake It Out.” That’s my song of the week.
I'm sure they wrote the song just for you.
h. The obstruction call (he said through gritted teeth), though a stupid rule because umpires cannot use interpretation, was called correctly to end Game 3.
I know Red Sox fans will kill me for saying this, but even if the umpires could use interpretation I could see an argument that Middlebrooks meant to trip Allen Craig. If you watch the replay then you notice as he falls to the ground trying to catch the errant throw Middlebrooks' legs go up in the air. Then he lowers his legs and raises them again as Craig tries to run over him. Since Middlebrooks legs actually came back in the air after they were on the ground and just happened to be raised again as Allen Craig tried to run in the baseline, I could see where umpires could interpret intent to trip Allen Craig. Upon seeing the replay a few times, it seemed odd to me that Middlebrooks' legs went down on the ground and then happened to raise back up when Craig tried to run in the baseline over him.
j. Quote of the Series, from Jonny Gomes to Marc Topkin of the Tampa Bay Times, concerning the fact that he was only in the lineup Sunday night because Shane Victorino’s back tightened up and forced him to the bench, giving Gomes the chance to hit the game-winning three-run home run: “I had to ‘Tonya Harding’ Victorino.”
k. Google or Bing “Tonya Harding” if that one slips past you.
Sure, just as soon as you Google or Bing "Wally Pipp."
n. Beernerdness: Also had the good fortune to be at Game 2 of the Series on Thursday, and was nearly as lucky to be back in my favorite old neighborhood restaurant Picco, in Boston’s South End. Very good beer menu. Tried the Star Island Single, a Belgian ale from Smuttynose in New Hampshire, and it was almost like a light ale. Okay, and eminently drinkable, but not memorable.
This wasn't a memorable beer, yet Peter remembers the name of the beer, who made the beer, what kind of beer it tasted like and also remembers enough of the taste to give a review on whether he liked the beer or not.
Who I Like Tonight
Seattle 33, St. Louis 10. Bet you thought I’d say, “Boston 4, St. Louis 3,” didn’t you?
Nope, I didn't.
I'm not including the Adieu Haiku, because it is a haiku and a bad joke. It's a reference to the "illegal bat" call in the Patriots-Dolphins game. Fine, here it is.
I have always thought
the home for illegal bats
was in the belfry.
I bet you feel dumber having read that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)