0 comments The Ghost of Hot Sports Takes From Bleacher Report's Past

When I write about Bleacher Report I tend to not give the author of the column or slideshow a name unless he is someone who actually is a "name" or rather well-known writer. I call the person writing the slideshow "the author" most of the time. Bleacher Report has improved over the years for sure. There's a reason for that. The site has shed it's past, which seemed to consist a lot of times of high school students who need to gain attention by writing about sports, but have no idea how to write about sports. They hired "real" writers now and there is quality sportswriting on the site. Of course, there is still bad writing. I received an email with a link to a column about Billy Martin and George Steinbrenner from 2010 on Bleacher Report's site. I read it and it was horrible, horrible writing. So I looked at the author's archive that consists mainly of hot sports takes where the author ignorantly spit out all of his biases and ridiculous reasoning into columns that ended up very, very wrong. The author couldn't even be concerned with filling out a bio. No time for that when hot sports takes are ready to be served.

So this is just a sampling of the archive where the author takes out his/her (not entirely sure and won't assume the name is either gender, but I will write "he") admitted bias against teams in poorly-written and eventually incorrect screeds on Bleacher Report. We are all wrong at times, but there is nothing like being wrong and being so cocky and presumptive you won't be wrong.

First, the author (who admits to hating Steinbrenner and Martin in the comments) states Billy Martin and George Steinbrenner should not be in the baseball Hall of Fame. I tend to agree with Martin at least, but feel the hatred and 10th grade-level writing bleed off the page and into your unsuspecting eyes. It's incredibly bad writing filled with amateur hot sports takes better served coming from a Twitter account with an egg for an avatar. The author hasn't written since 2011, but I'm sure he's trolling some sports message boards somewhere.

The late George Steinbrenner and the late Billy Martin did not receive many votes by the Hall of Fame Veterans Committee. This sounds just about right; they didn't deserve to be in the Hall of Fame on their first try.

In fact, they shouldn't be in the Hall of Fame period. Neither did anything special to earn that honor, so it's hard to believe either of them will be there.

Steinbrenner did nothing to merit being in the Hall.

I'm confused. So the author DOESN'T think George Steinbrenner should be in the Hall of Fame?  

He caused damage to the sport by escalating salaries, and he basically destroyed the chances of small-market teams winning championships. He created the divide between small-market teams and big-market teams when it comes to generating revenue that has not been resolved.

Steinbrenner did have some help, but it seems completely fair to just blame George Steinbrenner in total for these issues.

This guy had too much baggage; he wasn't beloved by his fellow owners, treated employees like slaves,

I'm not entirely sure how Steinbrenner can be responsible for the escalating salaries of players and then stated that he treated his own players (who he paid a lot of money to be in his employ) like slaves, but I'm sure the author has totally sound reasoning for making this statement. He just never explains the sound reasoning.

Talk about Steinbrenner giving Steve Howe, Darryl Strawberry and Dwight Gooden second chances. He wanted to rejuvenate their careers, but he wasn't doing it to be a savior. He wanted to take credit if those guys succeeded, and he wasn't afraid to let people know it was him that played a role in their success.

If you want to look at it that way, then yes. Does Tony Dungy counsel NFL players to soothe his own ego or because he really wants to help counsel these players? If I hated Tony Dungy I could make an argument that it's all about him and how he wants to take credit for the success of these players. Either way, the result is what mattered. Steinbrenner gave these three players chances to rejuvenate their careers.

Besides, owners have no business being in the Hall. they don't play the game, so there's no reason for them to be in. Yes, they run a business. But, the Hall should be about players and managers—nothing more than that.

These hot takes are coming at me so fast, I can barely catch them all. The best part is this hot sports take is just thrown out there and immediately abandoned for the next one. No need to elaborate further, here's something else hot off the presses!

Go ahead and talk about his success. People should remember something: The Yankees went on a great run after Steinbrenner's suspension, and when he came back, he rode on their coattails.

(touches computer screen and burns his finger)

This is the same owner who wanted to trade all those prospects. He wanted guys who can win now and did not want to wait another five or six years. Once he came back from suspension, he started his nonsense. The prospects flourished, and it resulted in the "Core Four" of Andy Pettitte, Mariano Rivera, Derek Jeter and Jorge Posada.

Imagine if Steinbrenner traded them all: where would the Yankees be now?

But Steinbrenner ended up not trading them all, so the hypothetical of what Steinbrenner didn't do isn't a good reason to keep him out of the Hall of Fame. That's a positive for Steinbrenner that he got overruled and decided not to trade these players.

Imagine if Lou Gehrig was born as a chipmunk instead of a human? How good would he have been at playing first base without arms and legs and the insatiable need to cross the street when a car was coming? HOW COULD LOU GEHRIG HAVE BECOME THE MOST OVERRATED FIRST BASEMAN IN MLB HISTORY IF HE WERE BORN A RODENT???

Basically, the Yankees won in spite of him. He contributed spending money by getting the best players, but it's easy to do when he has many resources to work with in the biggest media market in the world.

The Johnny-come-lately Yankees fans will say great things about him, but those folks weren't around during the dark days of Yankees baseball.

Every single one of you. None of you were around during the dark days of Yankees baseball. Only the author was there, screaming curses at children who dared to wear a Don Mattingly jersey to a Yankees game.

If he wasn't winning, he wouldn't be beloved here.

Very astute observation. It's like saying if Derek Jeter had 3 hits instead of over 3,000 hits he wouldn't be headed for the Hall of Fame. The fact Steinbrenner did win is why he was beloved and a case for his Hall of Fame induction can be made. Sure, if you ignore the reasons he should be in the Hall of Fame he wouldn't have a very good case.

As for Martin, he was an overrated manager. He was fired everywhere he had been, and he won championships in spite of his work with the Yankees. Earl Weaver out managed him at every opportunity.

Whew! This was three sentences of three hot sports takes.

There was nothing special about Martin.

If he did not like a player, he would do everything possible to make his player miserable. Ask Reggie Jackson for details.

Okay, I will. (Bengoodfella goes to call Reggie Jackson and then realizes he has no way of getting Jackson's phone number)

He fell in love with role players, which is amusing since they did nothing.

I'm pretty damn amused. I can admit that.

This guy was also a bigot. He never worked well with African-Americans, and he wasn't any better with Jewish players.

By the way, the author states in the comments he doesn't think Ty Cobb should be in the Hall of Fame either. At least he's consistent. 

There was nothing to like about him. Martin was all about himself. He was a sideshow at home and at the ballpark. He was a fixture at nightclubs and bars.

If Martin didn't do any of those things, he may have been in the Hall of Fame a long time ago. Writers may have voted him in even though he doesn't deserve it based on his work.

He was his own enemy. He felt everything had to be his way. He thought the game was about him and not the players. He never respected anyone.

But see, this is really something that Bleacher Report allowed to be printed on their site in 2010. Even if it was true to an extent, it's not exactly the best and most analytical reasoning possible for why Billy Martin shouldn't be in the Hall of Fame.

ESPN featured The Bronx Is Burning in 2007. This drama revealed everything about Martin, and the writer took notes of every moment of those scenes. The impression was the Yankees manager was not the guy to root for.

AND SINCE WHEN HAS A MOVIE PORTRAYED A REAL LIFE PERSON INACCURATELY?

There's no question the committee showed their vendetta on Steinbrenner and Martin. They wanted to make both of them pay for their actions.

It seems the committee may have evaluated Steinbrenner and Martin on their merits, while the only one with a vendetta just may be you. It's hard to tell, because this is such a nuanced piece of writing.

The committee made their minds up, and there's no reason to think they are going to change their minds on both of them.

Because if a baseball figure isn't inducted into the Hall of Fame on his first try, history shows he never gets inducted into the Hall of Fame...well, at least in the author's world.

(the author steps up on a pedestal)

The Hall is not a place for cheaters, criminals and jerks. This is a sacred place for guys who made the game a better one. It's for guys who made the job a better place.

(the author steps down off his pedestal, smashing his shoe into a child's face on the way down for the crime of drooling and having no concern for the author's words by crying while he's talking on his pedestal )

It's a joke that there is a debate about this. It's funny to see people get worked up by all this.

Yes, it certainly is hilarious to see people get worked up by all of this. The author certainly doesn't seem worked up about it at all.

As good as it looks for both men, it really wasn't that special.

That's what she said.

If you want a slightly more nuanced look at Steinbrenner's Hall of Fame candidacy then follow this link. If you want a take like you just read, may God have mercy on your soul.

Now the author boldly takes on Mark Teixeira for dumping Scott Boras as his agent. 

Typical Mark Teixeira.

He wants everyone to congratulate him for dumping Scott Boras. He approached as a newsworthy moment. He acted like this was a noble thing to do.

Tex's statement at the time. Here is what he said a few years later about his reasoning. I don't know, it seems like he just sort of let Boras go rather than bask in the glory of it all. Maybe I don't hate the Yankees enough to see how evil Tex really was for dropping Boras.

He claimed he dumped Boras because he was tired of people knowing him as Boras' client rather than be a baseball player.

If that is not being self-centered, then what is?

I'm not entirely sure the author understands how an agent actually works. The entire point of having an agent is to make things about the person hiring the agent. Like that's the entire purpose of an agent, to make it about his client.

First of all, no one is interested in his reasoning. No one cares.

If no one is interested and no one cares then why was Tex dumping Boras reported on by the media and now you are so uninterested in his reasoning that you are criticizing his reasoning?

This is about his being protective of his image. Obviously, he cares about what people think of him. That type of stuff belong to high schoolers. Professional players should just do their job and keep quiet.

Yeah, that type stuff belong to high schoolers. Like using an "s" at the end of words to show the word is plural or to indicate you know how to correctly use grammar. So high school.

This sounds like he wants to pass the buck rather than looking at the mirror. He should try that. This is a guy who likes to educate people about the game.

He treats the local media as if they are dumb. He gets defensive when he deals with the tough questions.

This isn't an adult writing these sentences. This is a child who just found out his parents don't have a password anymore on the computer and he is writing these sentences trying to take every chance he can get to bash his least favorite team.

He whines about getting hit by pitch often.

What a rebel. The author is still not using an "s" at the end of his sentences. Fuck you, grammar! You are just a racist Billy Martin lover!

He intentionally injured Angels catcher Bobby Wilson by ramming through him after getting a hit by pitch last year.

He rammed all the way through Bobby Wilson? I don't remember Tex murdering a catcher, but my memory may be a little hazy.

Remarkably, Teixeira sounded indifferent about the whole thing when asked about it. He did not even bother calling him.

This is a totally relevant anecdote as it pertains to why Mark Teixeira is an asshole for firing Scott Boras.

This is not the first time he had those problems. He's been like that with the Texas Rangers. He was sensitive to criticism over there.

The Rangers had no choice to trade the moody player. He became a bad influence to the young players, and he took the life out of that team with his complaining.

This is a fact! Not an opinion! A fact! If it weren't for Michael Young, the entire Texas Rangers franchise would have folded in on itself due to Mark Teixeira's bad influence.

Yes, Teixeira won a championship two years ago, but it's easy to go play for a team that buys a championship every year. Besides it's not like he was doing anything in the postseason two years ago.

Great point. It's easy to win a World Series. In fact, 20 MLB teams won the World Series just last year and Teixeira's season line of .292/.383/.565 with 39 home runs and 122 RBI had nothing to do with the Yankees even being in the playoffs.

He treats the local media as if they are dumb. He gets defensive when he deals with the tough questions.

If he was serious about changing his image, he shouldn't have gone out and made a news conference out of it.

If he is going to be serious about this, he should be stoic to the media from now on. He's better off anyway because he adds no insight to his quotes.

Mark Teixeira needs to deal better with the local media and answer the tough questions. He should not have publicly stated he was leaving Scott Boras. Teixeira should simply not talk to the media at all.

So in summary, Mark Teixeira doesn't give good quotes because he won't answer tough questions, but the author thinks he shouldn't even talk to the media anyway if he is only going to give the media information like the fact Scott Boras isn't his agent anymore. So I really have no idea what the author wants from Tex at this point...other than for him to just die.

It's hard to think he's going to change. No one ever changes. It's one thing from a kid to grow up at some point, but when a man is set in his ways, there's no reason to think he will change.

I honestly have no fucking clue what the author is talking about right now.

Also, fans worry about him hitting a baseball. They want him to get over his April slump that haunted his career. If he does that, no one will care if he is a jerk. It seems Teixeira is too worried about what people think of him. If that's the case, he does not mean well at all.

He has to do this based on his heart. If he is really serious about this, he has to show it.

Oh Jesus Christ, this is like a diarrhea explosion of words on the computer screen. Teixeira needs to do this (do what?) based on his heart and he has to show it. I feel like the author is just playing mad libs right now or trying to talk to the readers in code.

By firing Boras, he put the attention on himself and that's the way he likes it.

Except you stated he didn't like it that way because he won't give the media a juicy quote to digest. This is the type of crap that used to end up on Bleacher Report.

Then the author wrote a trilogy of articles about how the 2011 Tampa Bay Rays are a joke and they won't come close to doing anything during the season because they don't have the hitters to make the playoffs. The Rays went 91-71 and made the playoffs the year the author wrote these three columns. It's not that author was wrong, it's that he was so absolutely sure he was right it's hilarious to read how he wrote with such confidence.

The author first took on the owner of the Rays (naturally) and his cult of followers. You can read the desperation in these articles from the author. He's desperate to write something that another person will read and he will troll as hard as possible for pageviews. He's the Mark Teixeira of Bleacher Report. He just needs to do this based on his heart and show it.

Despite the fire sale, the Rays owner has them believing the Rays can be a wild-card team. When the Rays signed Manny Ramirez and Johnny Damon over the weekend, the cults were in propaganda mode. They mentioned the signings will make the Rays as good as last year.

Which they were not as good by five games. Of course, that's not such a big deal when the Rays won 96 games the year before.

Let's get real here. The Rays will do okay, but expecting them to win 87 games is crazy.

They won 91 games. It's a crazy world.

Signing couple of washed-up players is not going to improve the offense. If Damon and Ramirez were any good, they wouldn't be playing for the Rays. The Rays hope to get something out of those two, but its unrealistic. Now, if they signed Vladimir Guerrero, then it's okay to get excited.

Damon hit .261/.326/.418 with 16 home runs, 73 RBI's and 19 steals.

Guerrero hit .290/.317/.416 with 13 home runs, 63 RBI's and 2 steals.

The starting rotation will do a fine job, but they are going to have to be perfect to win games. That's too much to ask. They are going to be involved in 2-1 or 3-1 games often, and if the offense can't provide run support, they are just not going to win them.

15th in runs scored, 25th in batting average, 13th in OBP, and 13th in slugging percentage. 14th in the majors in OPS. So scoring runs wasn't a huge issue.

People argue Jeremy Hellickson can replace Garza, but that's wishful thinking at best. First of all, Hellickson is going to go through growing pains in his first full season.

He went 13-10 with a 2.95 ERA, 1.15 WHIP, 3.5 WAR in 189 innings.

If the Rays had their way, James Shields would have been traded, but he has no value right now.

Two seasons later James Shields landed the Rays Wil Myers in a trade from the Royals.

Signing Farnsworth was a bad idea. He's proved he can not be reliable over the years. He will blow games, and he will get hit hard. Joe Maddon would be wise to use him as a situational reliever.

He had a 2.18 ERA and 0.99 WHIP with 25 saves as the Rays' closer.

This year is not going to be easy for the Rays. It’s not going to be bad, but there are too many questions to think this team is going be a playoff team.

They were.

Sternberg and his management team can brainwash others all they want, but it does not change the fact this team has questions to answer.

You mean exactly like every other MLB team?

Now the author isn't satisfied with his previous statements about the cult of Sternberg and has some thoughts on the Rays' signings. 

They are relying on castoffs from their offseason moves. They feel those guys can help them contend for a wildcard spot with their core players.

It's an interesting move. It could work out, but it may not work out.

It may or may not work out. Thanks for clearing up all confusion. This is analysis.

They have fine intentions, but there's no guarantee it will work.

There are no guarantees! None! Every other MLB team has guarantees, but not the Rays.

As for Damon, he struggled at the plate last year. Despite having a good on-base percentage, he couldn't be a difference-maker on the base paths. He wasn't hitting either. His defense left a lot to be desired, especially when he throws to the cutoff guy.

Again, the Rays have to hope this works out.

I don't know if the Rays would have signed Johnny Damon and Manny Ramirez prior to the 2011 season in the hopes it would NOT work out. But, as the author has told us, it may or may not work out.

Bush will be in the minors. Kotchman and Delaney will get a shot to make the team. The Rays hope to get something out of Peralta and Farnsworth.

Kotchman has showed he is no better than Dan Johnson.

Kotchman: .306/.378/.422 with 10 home runs and 48 RBI's in 500 at-bats.

Johnson: .119/.187/.202 with 2 home runs and 4 RBI's in 84 at-bats.

Yep, they were really the same player in 2011.

These moves are the best the Rays can do. For a small-market team, it's hard to expect them to retain all of their stars and get a premier free agent. Still, the Rays should have kept Grant Balfour and Dan Wheeler, but they apparently thought those two did as well as they could.

It's hard for the Rays to keep their stars, but they should have done it anyway. Just create money for payroll out of nowhere. How hard could that be? The author with a thorough lack of understanding for the economic realities facing the Rays.

It's hard to understand the trade of Matt Garza. He is the type of starter that can win 12 games with his stuff. He can be inconsistent, but in big games, he delivers. To lose that type of starter, it's unfathomable, especially when he has several years to go on his contract.

David Price, James Shields and Jeremy Hellickson all won 12 games or more.

The Rays have become relevant to the public and to the AL East with these moves. Players have something to play for. That’s something at least.

A month ago the author didn't really like the moves and he sort of bashed them in the above column.

Now the author waits FIVE WHOLE GAMES of the 2011 season to announce the Rays' season totally over.

So much for the Tampa Bay Rays being a playoff team.

After watching them in this homestand, they are 0-5 for a reason. They feature no hitters that scare the other team. It's not surprising Jeremy Guthrie, Chris Tillman, Zach Britton, Jered Weaver and Dan Haren had their way with them.

It's no surprise those five pitchers had their way with the Rays because they are quality pitchers?

Go ahead and talk about how it's early, but it's not going to change the fact these hitters are not impact players.

"Go ahead and point out the fallacy in my reasoning or the small sample size I am drawing my conclusion from, but I will stand by my fallacy and small sample size until proven wrong. Okay, well I will just stop writing for Bleacher Report when I'm proven wrong."

The Rays hoped Manny Ramirez and Johnny Damon would provide the offense, but that hasn't worked out so far.

Ramirez was a disaster, but Damon turned it around. It's almost like five games is a tiny sample size to definitively base conclusions upon.

For what those two accomplished in the majors, they deserve a chance to get it together. If they don't by the end of May, the Rays should release both of them.

Or threaten to execute their family if they don't start hitting well. That's probably a better idea.

The Rays are relying on Reid Brignac, Sean Rodriguez, Dan Johnson, Matt Joyce and Ben Zobrist to make an impact as everyday players. That's too much to ask. Most of their players are nothing more than utility players at best.

Well, Dan Johnson IS Casey Kotchman. That much is obvious. Also, 2011 Matt Joyce and Ben Zobrist take exception to the idea they are utility players at best. Great foresight though.

Brignac and Rodriguez may be better than they are portrayed, but it doesn't seem like it.

Of course, in his angry brilliance the author picks the two players who AREN'T as good as they are portrayed as being better than they are portrayed.

It's ridiculous to expect starters to win games by themselves. It never happens. Pitching and defense wins championships, but that becomes meaningless if the team can't hit.

So pitching and defense don't win championships then? Because, pitching, defense, and offense wins championships? I'm confused.

The lack of hitting not only will not make the Rays a playoff team, but it will mean 84 losses.

Only off by 13 losses. That's not so bad.

They are on pace to do just that after watching the first five games at the Trop.

Because five games was the perfect sample size to come out and spit hot sports takes about how the Rays are a terrible offensive team.

Now the author comes in hot at Tom Coughlin and Eli Manning on September 8, 2011. He says the Giants are going nowhere, NOWHERE he tells us, with Tom Coughlin and Eli Manning leading the team. I don't want to be a bully, but this author comes in so hard and hot on these teams with his hot takes it is really funny to read just how wrong he was. By the way, the Giants won the Super Bowl six months after this column was written.

They are hoping miracles can happen again this year for Big Blue. With the team dealing with many injuries and many defections in the offseason, they are in a bind already. The experts are not giving them a chance to be a playoff team.

And when, other than every single year, have the experts been wrong?

The Giants’ problems stem from the head coach and the quarterback. What confidence does anyone have in Giants quarterback Eli Manning and Giants head coach Tom Coughlin?

Considering they won a Super Bowl in 2007 together, as a non-Giants fan I had some confidence in them.

What confidence do the Giants have in Manning now? He did not have a good preseason. He was off target throwing the ball to his receivers. He continues to have problems with interceptions.

It doesn’t seem like he is getting better. Maybe it’s time to realize he had a fluke 2007 postseason.

Yes, maybe it is time to realize he had a fluke 2007 postseason. In 2011, Eli Manning ended up having one of the best, if not the best, season of his career. Oh yeah, and the Giants won the Super Bowl. Either way, it's time to go hard at Tom Coughlin. Careful Tom, the author is blazing at you with his hot takes about your coaching style!

Then there’s Coughlin’s leadership as coach.

He has had his team unprepared and undisciplined every game. They find ways to lose rather than to win. When the going gets tough, Coughlin implodes by screaming at his players rather than leading them and teaching them about what happened on a play. He is often confused on the sidelines every game.

That last sentence sounds like it came directly from Gregg Easterbrook. It's amazing to me that the Giants won two Super Bowls with a coach who has his team unprepared and undisciplined every game. Either that, or the author is just making shit up because he wants to write an article bashing the Giants to gain attention. I'll let you decide.

It could come down to this. His players tuned him out. Their play and their demeanor indicate that. This is why the Giants should have not bothered keeping Coughlin this season. They should have found a coach that can offer a new perspective for guys to listen.

Oh boy, I bet this is awkward for the author to go back and read.

The Giants didn’t look at it that way. They feel Coughlin hasn’t lost it. Plus, they didn’t want to fire him after a 10-win season.

It’s a good thing he won the Super Bowl in 2007 or else he would have been looking for work a long time ago. 

Plus Coughlin had a 65-47 record (That's a 58.0% winning percentage, which is very close to the winning Bill Parcells had with the Giants) prior to the 2011 season. It's weird how the Giants choose not to fire a coach and then he wins the Super Bowl. It's almost like this knee-jerk writing is exactly that, overly-emotional hot takes in an effort to gain attention.

That’s why the Giants are hard-pressed to make the playoffs this year.

My man comes in hard with this sentence, then the Giants win the Super Bowl. No wonder he quit writing for Bleacher Report. Even 2011 Bleacher Report found his belligerent hot takes too embarrassing to publish.

Both of them have shown no evidence that they can lead and produce outside of a fluke 2007 postseason, so it’s hard to get excited about this season.

When hot sports takes go bad. I'm not trying to use hindsight or bully this author, but he's so damn certain of himself and speaks with such authority, it's just fun to read just how bad his writing was at the time.

Because the author most likely felt left out, he decided on June 8, 2011 to go hard with hot sports takes about how LeBron James can't handle the spotlight. The author's writing is like a greatest hits of overreactions that look really foolish a few years later. But what makes it so great is just how sure and non-nuanced the author is when writing about these teams and players. He kicks nuance to do the door in favor of feeling like he's preaching nothing but the truth.

With a few seconds left in Game 4 of the NBA Finals, Dwyane Wade threw the ball to Mike Miller, who missed a three-pointer that would have sent the game to overtime.

No one can blame Wade for not throwing it to LeBron James, who was disengaged and disinterested in his eight-point performance.

James’ approach cost the Heat a victory as the Mavericks evened the series at two in an 86-83 victory at Dallas.

I am starting to think the author is really Skip Bayless.

Well, there was no defense for this disgraceful performance. Not only did he do nothing on offense, James wasn’t defending either. His defense resembled Nate Robinson’s defense, which is standing around and doing nothing.

Yeah, LeBron plays defense EXACTLY like Nate Robinson. Except Nate Robinson is a winner while LeBron James is a loser.

That was why he made the decision to take his talents to South Beach. The message was clear. He did not want to be the go-to guy on his team anymore, and he did not want the burden of being the face of the franchise anymore. He wanted to be known as a guy who can just fit in with Wade.

Yes, I am sure LeBron James went to Miami because he thought he wouldn't be noticed there. That's why he was so quiet about choosing the Heat when he decided which team he would join as a free agent. LeBron just wanted to quietly fit in, which is why he scheduled an hour-long special announcing his choice to go to the Heat. That's why LeBron promised "not one, not two, not three..." championships at the huge ceremony introducing he and Bosh as new members of the Heat. He just wanted to fit in.

After the Cavaliers bowed out in the playoffs the last two years, James decided it wasn’t worth it anymore. He thought being a one-man team was a burden.

Every single NBA player ever has thought that being a one-man team is a burden. That's why every NBA Championship team has not been a one-man team. There have always been other important, contributing players on that team. No superstar can win a title as a one-man team.

Not only has he stunk on the court, he also came up lame in his press conference. He failed to take accountability by saying he stunk. He came up with excuses for what went wrong.

The author really reads a lot into quotes given by athletes before and after a game. He's very angry with what Mark Teixeira says to the media and he's outraged at LeBron's excuses for his performance.

He talked about how his shots did not go in, which is odd considering he didn’t bother to take shots in Game 4. He talked about how he has to do a better job of being assertive offensively when he did not make an effort to do so.

I'm feeling like the author is too enraged to pay attention while writing this column. See, LeBron said he has to do a better job being assertive BECAUSE he did not make an effort to do so. So it's not an excuse, but LeBron acknowledging the author's criticism that he didn't play assertive enough. Yet, the author doesn't understand this and seems to not understand cause and effect. LeBron can't go back in time and make himself more assertive, so he has to in the future be more assertive. That's what he was saying. Slow down the hot takes and read.

Instead of mumbling through the press conference or coming up with silly clichés, he should have just said that he stunk and he will be more aggressive on Thursday.

He did say he would be more aggressive. Hence the "do a better job of being assertive offensively" part of his comments.

Great players such as Kobe Bryant, Jason Kidd, Dirk Nowitzki, Michael Jordan and Wade were not ashamed to call themselves out if their performance was unacceptable.

Hmmm...not sure this is a fact-based comment.

Winning a championship should change how a player is perceived, but in the case of James, that’s not happening. Not when he took the easy way out. Not when he is not making an impact in these Finals.

Hot sports take fail. Winning two championships did change how LeBron was perceived.

If he had his way, people would leave him alone and just accept him for what he is.

Maybe it’s time for all of us to stop celebrating him as a great player and look at him as a role player that is along for the ride.

Man, that last sentence was a real burner. Great job of trolling to get attention. It's been over three years and this article has 89 reads. 89 reads in over three years. The author spits out trolling attempts so often to get attention, yet it didn't seem to work.

Bleacher Report isn't perfect today, but this is the sort of crap that got printed a lot a few years ago. The site consisted of a lot of hot sports takes that existed merely for the sake of drawing attention.

0 comments It's Never Too Early to Panic About the Preseason

Mike Lupica likes being critical (Bengoodfella looks in the mirror sadly because this probably describes him too) and he's very good at telling everyone what they should or should not be doing. He has opinions on President Obama golfing too much, what George Steinbrenner would do, and how "You're the Worst" should actually be a television show about Alex Rodriguez. Mike is very concerned about the New York Giants after their preseason performances on offense and so he decides to write a column where he asks questions that can't be answered until the games start. Still, these are VERY IMPORTANT QUESTIONS based on preseason games. Mostly, Lupica seems concerned the Jets have their shit together more than the Giants do. This type of tyranny will not stand.

At least about this there can be no question: If the Giants are allowed to play other teams’ second-team and even third-team defenses with their second-team offense this season, then they might be favorites to win another Super Bowl.

Hilarious. Eli Manning sucks because it's the preseason and he hasn't won the Super Bowl yet.

Are you kidding? Give the ball to Ryan Nassib, Eli Manning’s backup, in the second half in August and look out.

And as everybody knows, how a backup quarterback plays in the preseason against other backups will immediately translate to that backup quarterback playing well in the regular season against the starters.

This time it was the Jets and this time Nassib threw three touchdown passes and the Giants won again, making it 4-0 in the preseason,

Everyone panic! The Giants are 4-0 in the preseason but haven't looked good while being 4-0. This portends trouble in the future because the Giants aren't winning in the sexy way that Mike Lupica requires the Giants to win. Derek Jeter would not accept a 4-0 record if those wins weren't earned in the right way, so why should the Giants say they are 4-0 when it's only their backups winning preseason games? A panic needs to happen, grab your pitchforks, Mike Lupica is storming the streets of New York.

which means this is the most meaningless and fascinating and frightening unbeaten preseason — to Giants fans — in all of team history.

No, this is the most meaningless, fascinating, and frightening unbeaten preseason in NFL history. Is a 4-0 record really an unbeaten record if Mike Lupica refuses to regard it as so? You know the answer before I even finished the question...of course not. The Giants may be 4-0 in the preseason, but these meaningless preseason games definitely mean something for the upcoming season because Mike Lupica has a column he needs to write and this is the only idea he had for a column.

Because when you add up everything we have seen and everything that has happened since the preseason began in Canton, the two most positive developments on offense are these:

1. Eli Manning isn't injured.

2. It's preseason and teams don't always game plan so an offensive/defensive unit's performance may mean very little?

-One two-minute drill from Eli at the end of the first half on Friday night.
-A rookie receiver out of Division II Newberry College named Corey Washington, who has looked like this year’s Victor Cruz even if he has been mostly playing with Second-Half Nassib and Curtis Painter.

I tell you, Mike Lupica works hard. He works hard to discredit any type of success the Giants had in preseason so that he can sound the alarm bells. The Giants may have found an undrafted free agent receiver who can complement Victor Cruz, but that's not going to be enough for Mike Lupica because Washington looked good with Nassib and Painter throwing him the football. Since Eli Manning sucks, how much will Washington's skills drop off when Eli is throwing him the ball?

But whatever happened against the Jets, and that includes all the good things that happened once Eli got the ball for the last time Friday night, Tom Coughlin’s new offense — the vision of new offensive coordinator Ben McAdoo — will enter the regular season with so many more questions to it than answers it’s not even close.

You mean the Giants team hasn't immediately figured out a new offense with one offseason of work in the new system? If the Giants' offensive players can't grasp a new system immediately then that system will obviously be a failure. It's not like NFL playbooks are complicated or anything.

We keep hearing that because of the new offense, the Giants might get off to a slow start. Gee, there’s good news. How did last season’s slow start work out?

The 2007 Giants started off 0-2 and they won the Super Bowl.

The 2011 Giants were 6-6 and they managed to win the Super Bowl.

But no really, I'm sure the slow start the Giants may hypothetically have can only mean the 2014 season will be a waste. Why even bother to play?

There are still new guys at right guard and left guard and center and a tackle, Will Beatty, coming back from a broken leg.

And the Giants are the only NFL team with question marks after the preseason is over. There must be panic about this, because how can the Giants be expected to compete with all of these other perfect NFL teams who don't have roster questions?

now that Hakeem Nicks is catching balls again and running at full speed, he’s doing all that for the Colts. 

If only the Giants would have known that Nicks would be healthy and could contribute, they could have kept Nicks on the roster. Mike Lupica is great at pointing out which free agents the Giants should have kept after those players have been signed by another team and appear to be healthy. If he were a GM, Mike Lupica would be Executive of the Year if he were allowed to wait until the end of the NFL season and then point out what moves his team should have made.

If Corey Washington does not turn out to be the new Victor Cruz, tell me who the second-most reliable wide receiver is after Cruz.

If Eli Manning dies in a parachuting accident, tell me who the best quarterback on the roster is again?

If the Giants' new stadium spontaneously combusted under the weight of Mike Lupica's ego, then where would the Giants play their home games?

If Tom Coughlin has a heart attack on the sidelines, is Ben McAdoo ready for a head coaching job? WHY HASN'T THIS BEEN ANSWERED IN THE PRESEASON GAMES YET?

Tell me how much you think the Giants are going to get out of tight end.

Who knows? Plenty of teams have succeeded without having a Pro Bowl tight end.

Tell me how sure you are that an almost entirely rebuilt offensive line is going to protect a quarterback who took the kind of beating that Eli took a year ago, especially since so many guys on that offensive line should still be wearing name tags.

And of course because Mike Lupica doesn't know the names of the offensive linemen then this must mean these offensive linemen are terrible at protecting Eli Manning. Mike Lupica is a gold mine of knowledge when it comes to the NFL after all, it's not like he just reacts based on what he's seen from the last game or anything.

And please tell me that you think the Giants of Coughlin and Manning, who haven’t won a single playoff game around those two Super Bowls, who haven’t even made the playoffs lately, are ready to take back the NFC East from Chip Kelly’s Philadelphia Eagles.

The Giants don't have to make the playoffs. They can win this thing called the "Wild Card" which means they just need to have at least the fifth or sixth best record in the NFC to make the playoffs. I understand the concept of the Wild Card isn't relatively new, but Mike Lupica has been busy talking over people on television and lecturing the President of the United States, so he probably hasn't had time to learn about this new "Wild Card" thingie.

Going into the regular season the Jets look a lot more organized on offense, even with a second-year quarterback, than the Giants do. And the Jets are a team built around defense.

And because the Jets are built around defense, there is no way they could be organized on offense. Teams built around defense are unorganized on offense, just like teams built around offense usually only have 9-10 guys playing defense on the field due to not having hired anyone who knows how to coordinate a defense.

It doesn’t mean the Giants can’t figure this out when the games count, far from it.

RETREAT! RETREAT!

Mike Lupica has some hot takes about the many questions surrounding the Giants' preseason performance and coats them in doubt about whether the team can be good enough offensively at the beginning of the season to win games, but then is all like, "But you know, it's preseason so who gives a shit...now back to how screwed the Giants are based on their preseason performance."

Nothing like having it both ways, huh? Lupica writes an entire article about how the preseason performance of the Giants means the team is disorganized, the offensive isn't being picked up quickly enough, and there are only two positives to take out of the preseason, but then wants to act like none of these things matter. He's got his bases covered. If the Giants struggle, he can spit out a "I told you the Giants were in trouble" column and if the Giants start out strong he can spit out a "The Giants had issues that I covered in a column, but as I said, it was preseason, and credit goes to the Giants for figuring out and correcting all of the huge problems that I alone pointed out the team had."

We have seen them struggle before in the preseason, but that was when Eli was fully in his comfort zone with Kevin Gilbride’s offense, the only one he has ever known as a professional football player.

Mike Lupica is now acknowledging all of this teeth grinding means nothing. It's typical shitty writing from Lupica that he takes the time to point out how the Giants are screwed if they start off slow (like last year and how did that turn out?!), but then say, "Oh, teams start off slow all the time." Keep riding that middle ground, Mike. Rip the team, but don't rip them hard enough to where your ego gets bruised if you are wrong.

Of course this continues to be the most unusual era in the 90 years of the Giants: Coughlin and Eli winning those two Super Bowls and not winning a single playoff game in any other season they have been together.

Sure, that's odd. I would take the trade-off though.

“No, (I’m) not concerned at this point,” Manning said. “I know we have to keep working and keep getting better. It is not where it needs to be, but I thought there was progress in today’s game. We are going to keep working. It’ll be better and better as things go on and hopefully it will be better next week and better for that opening game. We should be in a better situation. It is not going to be complete at that point. We are going have to continue to make improvements throughout the season.”

They have had four preseason games now. No one is saying the new schemes and the new approach should be “complete” by now.

Mike Lupica earlier in the column:

Tom Coughlin’s new offense — the vision of new offensive coordinator Ben McAdoo — will enter the regular season with so many more questions to it than answers it’s not even close. We keep hearing that because of the new offense, the Giants might get off to a slow start. Gee, there’s good news.

Lupica didn't use the word "complete," but he certainly seems to expect the Giants to have more answers about the offense than they have and finds a slow start to be unacceptable. So it seems like Lupica expects the Giants' offense to be complete without too much more room for improvement.

But you have to believe the first-team Giants’ offense should look better than it does, with one more preseason game, this Thursday night, to play. You would have thought they would have looked good moving the football more than once.

Possibly, but doesn't the fact the second-team offense has looked good mean that some of the Giants players are picking up the new offensive system and can find success in it? I guess not.

You can only imagine what the conversation would be like today if Eli hadn’t taken them down the field that one time Friday night. The Giants defense is going to be better this season, and maybe a lot better than it was last season.

But this doesn't matter because the Giants are a team built around offense. There's no way they can win games with their defense if they are an offensive team. It's impossible for the offense to struggle while the defense excels and the Giants to win games as a result.

It won’t matter if scoring touchdowns is as difficult for this team as scoring runs for the Yankees has been.

And of course Mike ends being negative. Here is Mike Lupica's take on the Giants offense in the preseason.

-It's preseason and the Giants offense hasn't looked good, which means they will start the season off slowly.

-There are so many questions the Giants have that weren't answered in the preseason. This is a bad sign for things to come.

-Who cares? It's preseason.

-The Giants have started slow before with an offense they already know, so their struggles in McAdoo's offense can mean nothing. The Giants' first-team offense doesn't necessarily need to move the ball in the preseason.

-The Giants first-team offense needs to move the ball in the preseason.

-The Giants first-team offense struggling in the preseason means something and if the defense has to carry the team then the Giants won't win games.

-Defense can't win games, except for the Jets who built a team around defense to win games.

Mike Lupica is the best at trying to be the worst. Does anyone like him?

5 comments Ross Tucker Disagrees with Co-Worker David Steele's NFL Coach Rankings, Also Disagrees with Himself About Why

Ross Tucker is showing us all how corporate synergy can work. Both he and David Steele work for The Sporting News and Steele put up a slideshow ranking the best NFL head coaches recently. Taking a page from ESPN, Tucker spits out a short column in response to David Steele's slideshow. Nothing like creating the news and then reacting to the news your company has created. I did have a few issues with David Steele's slideshow of the best NFL head coaches. He puts Andy Reid at #6, ranks John Harbaugh over Jim Harbaugh but then puts Pete Carroll at #2 (given the track record of Jim in consistently getting the 49ers to NFC Championship Game it seems he should be higher than his brother, even with no Super Bowl victory), and puts Jeff Fisher at #13. I'm sure most of you can guess my feelings about Jeff Fisher and Steele wrote this:

It’s hard to find anyone to knock Fisher’s coaching ability, some of the great teams he put together in Tennessee, the identity they forged, or even the early results of the current reclamation project in St. Louis. It’s harder to explain how he only made the playoffs six times, and had six winning seasons, in 17 years with the Oilers/Titans. The record needs to catch up with the reputation at some point.

IT'S BEEN 17 YEARS!

"At some point" Fisher's record needs to catch up with his reputation? When will this happen? After Fisher has coached in the NFL for 25 years? Naturally, after writing this David Steele ranks Fisher above Rex Ryan, Lovie Smith, and Chip Kelly despite the fact Fisher's teams have made the playoffs twice in the last nine years and haven't won a playoff game since 2003. So while Steele talks about Fisher's record catching up with his reputation, he doesn't back his words up with actions.

Jim Caldwell is #16 on the list, which shouldn't surprise me since that is David Steele's boy. I think if you gave NFL teams a choice between Rex Ryan and Marvin Lewis then I think the vast majority would choose them over Jim Caldwell. Apparently Dennis Allen is the worst coach in the NFL, though he also so happens to coach in quite possibly in one of the worst organizations in the NFL.

Ross Tucker's issue wasn't with the majority of Steele's rankings, but that Steele had Bill Belichick ranked above Tom Coughlin. Belichick was #1 on the list, while Coughlin was #3. See, Ross Tucker believes that Tom Coughlin has done more with less (while only discussing offense and not acknowledging defense), as well as has won games with more than one quarterback. Unfortunately, Tucker contradicts himself on this issue when saying Tom Coughlin's track record is more impressive than Bill Belichick and why.

Not so fast, David Steele.

This is a written version of a "First Take" debate. Ross Tucker is responding directly to something David Steele has written. Synergy is great.

My Sporting News colleague recently ranked all 32 NFL head coaches and started with the following line:

"One fairly reliable rule of thumb: Start with Bill Belichick and work your way down."

And then this:

"It's going to be a long time before any coach is able to dislodge him from the top."

Crazy. Insane. Just madness for David Steele to put one of the longest tenured NFL coaches (the longest tenured I believe) with the best track record #1 in his NFL head coaching rankings. How is that supposed to get pageviews and cause a controversy? It's bad enough Steele had to resort to a slideshow to get pageviews, but now he is going with conventional thinking and making the best coach in the NFL #1 in his coaches rankings? Unconceivable.

Belichick is an extraordinary football coach. The argument for him being the best head coach in the NFL is an easy one and it starts and probably ends with the incredible sustained success that his New England Patriots have enjoyed since 2001.

Yeah, but this isn't a contrarian position that Ross Tucker could take when he can't think of anything else to write about. So he will say that Tom Coughlin is the best head coach in the NFL for the sake of debate and to remind his readers that Belichick should be knocked down in the rankings because he's had Tom Brady as his quarterback.

The numbers are staggering. Eleven Division Titles.Eight Conference Championship Game appearances. Five Super Bowls. Three World Championships.

Yeah, but what have you done for me lately? Only two Super Bowls and four Conference Championship Game appearances.

Almost as impressive to me as all of those accomplishments was the 11-5 season the Patriots had in 2008 with first-time starter Matt Cassel under center after Tom Brady was lost for the season with a torn ACL in the opener.

Remember that Belichick had success with another quarterback under center. It will be important here in a few lines. Belichick went 11-5 with a quarterback not named "Tom Brady" starting for the majority of the season. Therefore, he had success with multiple quarterbacks.

Despite all of that, I'm still not 100 percent certain that Belichick is the best coach in the NFL.  It’s certainly not a slam dunk.

And because it's not a "slam dunk" this means that Belichick definitely isn't the best coach in the NFL? I think I understand it now. Ross Tucker wants to be a contrarian.

Allow me to make an argument for the one coach whose resume I believe can go toe to toe with Belichick: Tom Coughlin.

I like Tom Coughlin a lot. His numbers of five division titles, four conference championship game appearances, two Super Bowls, and two world championships do not go toe to toe with eleven division titles, eight conference championship game appearances, five Super Bowls, and three world championships. Yes, Coughlin has beaten Belichick twice for Super Bowl victories, but toe to toe Belichick's numbers are better.

I give special credit when evaluating coaches to those who have shown the ability to have success with multiple franchises and/or multiple quarterbacks. 

Well, then Belichick should be considered as good as Coughlin because when given a chance to have a quarterback who isn't Tom Brady the Patriots went 11-5. Belichick didn't have success with the Browns, but he went 36-44 as the head coach of the Browns and won 11 games in 1994, as well as had two 7-win seasons. The Browns have had zero seasons of 11 wins and three seasons where they won 7 games since Belichick left. So in terms of relative success with a team, Belichick had relative success in Cleveland.

That's why I've always respected Joe Gibbs' accomplishments so much.

Gibbs only had success with the Redskins, not another NFL team. He did have success with multiple quarterbacks, that's for sure. I'm not sure why Gibbs' accomplishments mean more than Belichick's (or maybe they don't?) in the mind of Ross Tucker simply because Belichick has consistently had a great quarterback. Plus, while Coughlin has had success with two quarterbacks, Belichick has had success with two quarterbacks as well. He had Matt Cassel lead the Patriots to a 11-5 season when Tom Brady got injured.

Coughlin started an expansion franchise from scratch with the Jacksonville Jaguars in 1996 and took them to the postseason four times in his first five years, including two berths in AFC Championship games. That's amazing and unprecedented for a fledgling franchise.

Coughlin is a great coach. There is no doubt about that. Still, his accomplishments can't go toe to toe with Bill Belichick's in terms of conference titles, division titles and Super Bowl titles. If Ross Tucker wants to talk relativity, then that's fine, but just be sure Belichick's relative success with Cleveland over a five year period the Browns have not had since he left should be considered in this discussion as well.

Belichick, on the other hand, only made the playoffs one time during his five-year stint as head coach of the Cleveland Browns in the 90s. That obviously pales in comparison to what Coughlin accomplished in Jacksonville.

It does, that's true. I think it's important to note that Belichick had success in Cleveland during his five years they haven't matched since and Belichick's success in New England eclipses Coughlin's success both in Jacksonville and with the New York Giants. No matter how Ross Tucker wants to slice it, Belichick's numbers overall are better. Of course Tucker wants to throw in cherry-picked reasons Coughlin is better, like his success with two franchises and his success with two quarterbacks, but this doesn't mean he's a better coach than Bill Belichick.

Now let's look more recently. Over the last nine years since Eli Manning's first full season as the starting quarterback in 2005, Coughlin has won two Super Bowl championships. Belichick has none

Funny how that cut-off time is 2005 when Coughlin coached the Giants in 2004. Why could that be? Perhaps because the Patriots won the Super Bowl that year? Don't you like how Ross Tucker is all, "It's what a coach does with two quarterbacks that makes him great," yet only wants to compare Coughlin as the Giants coach with Eli Manning as the starting quarterback. He doesn't want to talk about that 6-10 year with Kurt Warner because it's not convenient. And yes, that same Kurt Warner who had success in the NFL and is a possible Hall of Famer. A coach should be judged on what he does with multiple quarterbacks unless that's not a convenient metric for Ross Tucker to use.

Even since 2005, Coughlin has three division titles, two conference championships, and two Super Bowl wins. Belichick has had eight division titles, five conference championships, and zero Super Bowl wins. So Coughlin has reached greater heights, but Belichick has still made more conference championship appearances and won more division titles since 2005.

Maybe even more importantly, Coughlin has beaten Belichick head to head in both of those Super Bowls. That's a tremendous feather in his cap, especially when you consider the 2007 Patriots were clearly the more talented team in that game.

Yes, that was an impressive win. The Giants did have a pretty good defense during the playoff run though and it's important to note that Belichick has had consistent, sustained success with the Patriots while Coughlin hasn't quite met that standard of consistent, sustained success since 2005.

Have the Giants been as consistent as the Patriots in the non-championship years? Absolutely not, but then again, Manning isn't as consistent as Brady. Not even close.

Oh okay, now I get it. Belichick isn't a better coach because he has the better quarterback. It's sort of like how Tom Brady isn't the better quarterback as compared to Peyton Manning because Brady has Belichick as his head coach. Neither Brady or Belichick will get credit for their success at times due to their affiliation with each other.

I believe Brady is the best quarterback in NFL history. Even if you disagree, there has to be an acknowledgment that you can make a very compelling argument in Brady's favor in that regard.

So Coughlin would have done much better if he had a chance to coach a potential Hall of Fame quarterback. If only there were a quarterback he could have coached early in his career as the Giants head coach...

Manning? I'm not sure he's a top 10 QB in the NFL right now. He certainly wasn't last year.

I think Tucker isn't exactly looking at the defensive side of the ball and weighting Manning's performance last year too much. I would argue the Giants have had better defenses over the past few years than the Patriots have had. I'm sure that's Belichick's fault though and when comparing Manning to Brady defense shouldn't be taken into account at all. The only pertinent discussion as to whether Coughlin or Belichick is the better coach is a discussion that revolves around which coach has the better quarterback. Nothing else matters when comparing the two coaches.

So Coughlin did far better than Belichick with a different team and different group of men in their respective first opportunities as head coaches and has won two more Super Bowls over the last seven years,

But Belichick has done better when comparing both coaches side-by-side over the lifetime of their coaching careers. While Coughlin has been better in terms of winning the Super Bowl over the last few years, Belichick has still consistently accomplished more as a head coach during that time than Coughlin has. So the question becomes whether Tucker wants a coach who is consistently great, but can't win the Super Bowl, or a coach who won the Super Bowl a couple of times but has missed the playoffs four of the last five seasons.

beating Belichick head to head both times when everything was at stake with a lesser quarterback.

Well, Belichick did beat Coughlin to secure a perfect regular season record in 2007, but that was a regular season game so it clearly doesn't count in this discussion.

Are we still so sure that Belichick is the best coach in the NFL?

In terms of the coach that has accomplished the most over a long span of time, I would consider Belichick to be the best coach. That's just me, but Ross Tucker is incorrect by acknowledging and then forgetting Belichick has won games without Brady as his quarterback. He also focuses really hard on the two Super Bowl victories Coughlin has while ignoring that Belichick has accomplished more on a consistent basis during the time span of Coughlin's two Super Bowl victories.

No matter the reason, Ross Tucker's best coach in the NFL hasn't even made the playoffs four of the last five seasons. Is he sure that Coughlin is the best coach in the NFL? 

4 comments MMQB Review: Year in Review Edition

The last time we left Peter King he was giving Starbucks employee deployment suggestions and explaining to us that Tom Heckert didn't get tricked into trading up with the Vikings to get Trent Richardson, the Vikings just lied about other team's interest in trading up the #3 spot. Today Peter wonders if they give Oscars to SNL hosts, misses Junior Seau, and does his best to absolutely kill as much space in MMQB as possible. It's fine if MMQB is a two page column, there's no need to make extremely long lists and have Matt Light write a portion of MMQB for him just to make it longer. Perhaps Peter King needs some help with deployment of his MMQB nuggets in order to streamline the column a bit.

First up this morning: A history lesson

Peter King: Starbucks logistics consultant, NFL insider, Red Sox fan, beer reviewer, historian.

We'll never see two months like we've just seen in any offseason. Ever.

So Peter means the exact same things that happened over the past two months will never happen again in the same order they happened during the 2012 NFL offseason? Or does Peter mean the NFL offseason will never be this crazy again? I'm not sure the latter is true. This has been the craziest offseason, at least since last year's offseason or the offseason before that. Actually, we should be happy that Peter is busy this offseason. Last year during the lockout he spent his downtime not criticizing the employee deployment of coffee shops but trying to bankrupt car rental companies.

To recap:

To make a long list to kill space:

March 2 -- The NFL says the Saints ran a sophisticated bounty program with defensive coordinator Gregg Williams the ringleader and between 22 and 27 defensive players willing participants.

Yes, a "sophisticated" bounty program.

(Gregg Williams) "Tear Alex Smith's spine out. Try to injure Michael Crabtree. Anyone who knocks a player out of the game permanently gets $10,000 and if you hit one of the opposing players hard enough to where he has to take a play off you get $500. These are easy terms. Knock a player out of the game, you get $10,000, hit a player to where he has to take a play off, you get $500."

(Saints player talking to Drew Brees) "Boy, this is a sophisticated system."

(Drew Brees with his fingers in his ears) "I claim to be the leader of this team, but I have no idea what is going on in this instance. I'm not hearing this!"

In Peter King's opinion, the way Starbucks deploys their employees during a busy day is very simple, but the Saints bounty program was sophisticated.

March 9 -- Within eight hours, the following three stories break: Manning, a free agent, covertly flies to Denver,

Does this count as covertly if people know about it?

March 11 -- Brandon Marshall is accused of punching a woman during a skirmish at a New York nightclub.

In his defense, if you played for the Miami Dolphins last year then you would probably punch someone too.

March 15 -- Mario Williams, the most attractive defensive free agent on the market,

It's clear in the raging Mario/Cortland debate that has millions of pre-teen and teen girls screaming in delight and wearing t-shirts supporting their favorite attractive defensive free agent on the market, that Peter King is on Team Mario. It's really the Jacob/Edward debate for the NFL crowd.

March 17 -- Free agent quarterback Alex Smith, upset the 49ers haven't stepped up to the plate in negotiations, flies to Miami on a red-eye to investigate jumping to the Dolphins.

Unfortunately, the Dolphins had not invited Alex Smith to investigate the team and he was not allowed in the building upon arriving in Miami. In fact, the Dolphins had specifically asked Alex Smith to quit calling them.

March 18 -- Free agent quarterback Matt Flynn signs with Seattle, ostensibly to start at quarterback.

Though there is an outside chance he will be the new Sea Gals cheerleading coach.

March 19 -- Peyton Manning agrees to terms with Denver.

(Peyton Manning) "I want to sign here. I want $20 million per year."

(John Elway) "Great. Done."

(Peyton Manning) "I want Tim Tebow traded."

(John Elway) "Great. Done."

March 27 -- Bill Parcells, seriously considering taking the one-year Saints head-coaching job for his friend Sean Payton, plays golf with Payton and Loomis to see if they'd be able to work together.

Unfortunately, the golf trip ended acrimoniously when it was learned Mickey Loomis had put a listening device in Bill Parcells' golf bag. Sean Payton then claimed he knew nothing of this and left the course after it was correctly pointed out by Parcells that he doesn't have to find out how he would work with Payton since Payton isn't supposed to have any contact with the team for the next year. Parcells declined the offer to coach the Saints, then went home and tried to start new rumors that he would be coming out of non-retirement to coach an NFL team.

April 20 -- Goodell visits Minnesota to tell legislators, in essence, that if they don't approve funding for a Vikings stadium, the team could go to the highest-bidding city (read: Los Angeles).

Get your funds together Omaha, Nebraska! This could be your lucky day.

May 2-- Within two and a half hours, the NFL planet shakes.

Despite the fact there were no casualties, no injured and no survivors due to the NFL planet shaking Kayne West blames Barack Obama for the destruction, saying Obama "doesn't care about black people...born in the United States." West then went back to spending most of his free time reminding everyone he is still alive by being photographed publicly with Kim Kardashian, who is now offering group passes and family discounts for celebrities or athletes who want to have sex with her.

One: Goodell suspends four players for their roles in the bounty scandal, including a one-year ban for middle linebacker Jonathan Vilma ... Two: Junior Seau is pronounced dead in his San Diego home of a self-inflicted gunshot wound to the chest.

I have two cracks for this one: First the completely inappropriate and insensitive one that I really don't mean, but only share because I am 10% of a terrible person...

Boy, Seau took the news about Vilma being suspended badly, didn't he?

Now for my real crack...

Hundreds of thousands of Saints fans protesting the news of Payton, Vilma and other Saints coaches/players being suspended, while also mourning Seau, completely miss the possible connection between these two events. Saints fans then began mourning Seau while protesting the bounty punishments.

I don't know what it all means. Maybe this is a freaky year. Surely there won't be a player the status of Peyton Manning getting whacked and then wooed in free agency. Surely there won't be another story with the legs of the bounty scandal.

Yes, there will NEVER be another story like the bounty scandal. That's some great short-sighted thinking right there. The bounty scandal will NEVER be topped. Peter should keep believing that and then 1-2 years from now when something even more interesting and news-worthy happens he will forget he ever said this.

I just don't believe we'll ever see two months in an offseason when, day after day, week after week, the NFL obliterates the NBA, the NHL and major league baseball.

This won't happen other than any other offseason when something exciting happens concerning the NFL and it obliterates other sports news.

You can't have it both ways, folks. If you want the explosive, brain-rattling hits to continue unabated, there's a good chance we'll see more players wrecked as they leave football, and years after that.

That's a good point. We as fans are such hypocrites. I like hypocrisy though and think it fits my personality well.

But I am saying it's a logical avenue to explore, and the league can't wait five or eight or 10 years to have a conclusive study of enough deceased players' brains in order to say it's time to get serious about player safety.

That's another good point, Peter. Maybe next time when you and Roger Goodell are eating lobster you can bring this up. Assuming it doesn't get in the way of other lunch conversations of course.

And no more discussion of an 18-game schedule. Please. Simple logic says that's the dumbest idea of the Goodell Era.

Next to "Bring Your Grandmother to Work" day and then scheduling this day for a Sunday.

Fletcher didn't know Seau well, but he knows the type of person he was -- driven, brave, not one to ask for help.

I dislike cliches like this. If London Fletcher didn't know Seau well, then he didn't know what type of person he was simply because he was an NFL player. It may sound like a nitpicky thing to point out, but this cliche can be used for the negative too and then people get offended by the implication. It usually goes like this...

"I don't know that guy, but I know the type of person he is (then begins to stereotype the person based on age, race, religion, etc)."

How about we never use the "I don't know him, but I know him" cliche anymore?

You take the decision out of guys' hands,'' Fletcher said, "and that way, maybe some of them will be helped. If players have to go seek counseling on their own, lots of guys won't do that. Men in general, we're wired to hold things inside.

Which is why counseling does seem like a great idea, but may end up not being as effective as the NFL would want it to be. Even if the NFL makes counseling mandatory, they can't guarantee the players will get out of it what they should get out of it.

It's not manly to be vulnerable and ask for help. For me, now, I can tell you I'm going to seek help if I feel I need it. That's what Junior's death has taught me.''

This is probably a good move, but if the player isn't as open to receiving outside help as London Fletcher may be then there is a chance the counseling won't help. This doesn't mean this is a bad idea though.

Actually, it's the first of two D-Days. Today, the Minnesota House of Representatives will debate and then vote on the proposal for a $975 million, fixed-roof stadium next to where the Metrodome stands in downtown Minneapolis. On Tuesday, the Minnesota Senate will vote. The vote must pass in both bodies for the stadium to be built. If it passes -- and the smart political money says it will pass, barely -- the new stadium will be ready for football in 2016.

(insert joke about the old Vikings stadium not having seen a real football team play during the 2011 season)

The Vikings will be the prime candidates to move to Los Angeles, following the Lakers and North Stars out of town.

At which point Bill Simmons will buy season tickets to the Vikings games and write 3-4 articles a year where it suspiciously sounds like he is slowly becoming a Vikings fan.

And the politicians are in a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't position.

Which is apparently an unusual position for a politician to be in?

Some fear voting for the bill and getting voted out by the Tea Party types.

Those assholes always watching out for excessive spending.

Some fear voting against it and getting voted out by the Vikings fanatics.

Those assholes want their NFL team to stay in Minnesota.

How about the politicians do this, and I realize this is a crazy idea, but perhaps they should find out what the people who voted them into office want and then do that? It sounds silly to listen to your constituents and address their concerns by working towards alleviating them, but it may just work. Perhaps if these politicians worried less about being re-elected and more about voting how the people who elected them into office want them to vote, they would get re-elected anyway. I realize I am just speaking nonsense.

Then Matt Light has a part in MMQB where he writes about being an NFL player. He has retired, so Peter saw fit as to allow Light a farewell address to the MMQB reader(s).

But a closer look will show the Ravens have three things going for them in Suggs' absence: Pernell McPhee, Paul Kruger and Courtney Upshaw.

Backups? On the current Ravens roster? What a novel concept!

how fortuitous does it now look that they traded down to the 35th overall pick ... and Upshaw, stunningly, was still there?

That's at least 22% fortuitous.

the Ravens were already thinking about giving the precocious McPhee more playing time this year anyway.

He sure does look precocious. He's like a 280 pound Dennis the Menace.

Surely Upshaw as a rookie won't be able to be as productive as Suggs as a vet,

Well yeah, obviously...and don't call me Shirley.

That's why Upshaw should be one of the most significant rookies in the league this year. Instead of the Ravens being able to take their time with Upshaw this year and patiently teach him the defense and his role in it, now they'll have to do the teaching more rapidly, and the pressure will be on him to produce early.

Don't forget about Sergio Kindle. If he is over his injury issues, he could contribute some as well.

"Junior obviously had been facing demons for at least 18 months. That's no longer speculation. People can take pills, run their car off the road and that's a cry for help. He was crying out for help. Yet he was too proud to ask for it. What I'd like to see done ... There is no exit strategy from the NFL. It's 'You're done.' You don't even get an apple and a road map. What needs to happen is mandatory counseling. In 15 years as a middle linebacker, I never would have thought of seeing a counselor. I saw one in my divorce, and I just called my counselor today. It can't be optional, because macho players are taught to be invincible and they're not going to do it. Make it mandatory.''

-- Former Junior Seau teammate and veteran middle linebacker Gary Plummer, to Cam Inman of the Bay Area News Group, with one of the best ideas I've heard to come out of this tragedy.

Again, this is a great idea. What is the NFL going to do to a player who needs counseling AFTER he has left the NFL? They can't make that mandatory unless they plan on holding the player's pension hostage or something like that. For current players, would there be heavy fines for not attending the counseling? That seems like the best idea, but these NFL players need help after they are done playing, as well as when they are actively playing. There's no way to force current NFL players to seek counseling after they have retired from the NFL.

Someone has to tell me this: Why is the train station in downtown New York called Pennsylvania Station and the train station in downtown Newark called Pennsylvania Station and the train station in downtown Baltimore called Pennsylvania Station ... while the train station in downtown Philadelphia is called 30th Street Station, and the train station in Pittsburgh is called Union Station?

Scurrying to Wikipedia already this morning, are you?

Oh no, Peter. Most people have better things to do. You are one of the few people who worry about things like this.

Why do we drive on a parkway and park on a driveway??!!

Stanford tight end Coby Fleener, the 34th pick in the draft, wrote a story about me for a class at Stanford ... and he got it published in the Peninsula Press in the Bay Area.

This is a story which Peter included primarily so we would know someone wrote a story about him. That's just my guess. Quick question...does being the subject of an interview by an NFL player like this in any way affect Peter's coverage of Coby Fleener? You would think it has to, right? Fleener is a part of the sport that Peter covers for a living. This probably isn't such a big deal, but allowing Fleener to interview seems like the sort of thing that could affect Peter's coverage of Fleener. Maybe he's just developing sources to break news about when Andrew Luck finally gets the facial reconstructive surgery he so desperately needs. I can't emphasize this enough. He's one ugly looking guy.

(That's the last time I mention Andrew Luck's attractiveness, I promise...I hope)

7. I think you should pay attention to one undrafted player if you play fantasy football: Jeff Fuller

But Fuller wasn't signed by the Colts or Patriots and Gregg Easterbrook has taught me to only pay attention to undrafted free agents that are signed by those two teams.

In October, Fuller, of Texas A&M, was a legitimate first-round prospect. Then, as the 2011 season progressed, he seemed to drop more balls than he caught, he lost confidence, and bombed at the Senior Bowl.

Tell me no more. I'm drafting him first overall in my fantasy league this upcoming season. Actually, I have one more question...when he does catch the ball, does he tend to fumble a lot? If so, I'm drafting first overall and then trying to re-draft him later in the fantasy draft.

That plus he'll be catching the ball from his college quarterback, Ryan Tannehill,

Which should help immensely since this was the same quarterback throwing him the ball at Texas A&M when he seemed to drop more balls than he caught?

Maybe the dropsies will be terminal for Fuller. But if he catches the ball well in training camp, he's absolutely an NFL-caliber receiver.

At least he has Ryan Tannehill throwing him the ball in training camp that throw to him at Texas A&M. That kind of familiarity will help him drop passes more efficiently.

d. Very good to see the Nationals and the Orioles relevant.

I see no reason why the Orioles won't stay relevant. Things don't change quickly in MLB do they? Last year at this time the Indians were 22-10.

h. Funniest thing I've seen on "Saturday Night Live'' in memory was Peyton Manning coaching football to young kids on a field in Manhattan in a United Way ad spoof, and abusing them ruthlessly, to the point of punishing one by stashing him in a portable toilet. On Saturday night, Eli Manning wasn't as funny, but I don't recall a guest host playing more roles than Eli played the other night.

Eli is the Meryl Streep of sports SNL hosts. Such an acting chameleon.

j. Had the pleasure the other night of being with former Sox pitcher Bill Lee at a Red Sox game for a few innings. He's started making wine now, "Spaceman Red,'' in Napa Valley, which is fitting for a man of his varied tastes. Still a big baseball fan, with a twist. When he saw Cody Ross of the Red Sox wearing a think hood under his cap, Lee said, "What's he doing wearing a burqa?'' When the A's took out very effective starter Jarrod Parker in the seventh, Lee sneered, "Quality start,'' with disdain.

Kids these days! Always pitching well and then getting pulled from the game by their manager.

l. Coffeenerdness: Can you vary the baked goods, Starbucks? Are we fated to looking at the same doughy, tasteless scones for the rest of our lives?

If you hate the place so much, then stop going there. Stop bitching about how terrible Starbucks' food and service is. It isn't like Starbucks serves a product you can get nowhere else. There are plenty of other coffee shops. Go to those.

m. Beernerdness: Lucky enough to find Starr Hill Amber Ale ("The Gift of Great Beer'' is on the label, and I don't doubt it) from Crozet, Va., in D.C. over the weekend. Bold and full of flavor, like a strong Cabernet,

Beer that tastes like wine. What's so bad about that?

and eminently drinkable.

Which is convenient since that's how you are supposed to consume it.

6 comments MMQB Review: The Rise of Eli Edition

A few weeks ago Peter revealed to the shock and scorn of his readers that Super Bowl 46 was the exact same game as Super Bowl 42. Unfortunately, this revelation wasn't exactly true. This week Peter King has more shocking revelations for his readers. Apparently, and this may shock you so I hope you are sitting down, the Giants were really impressed by Eli Manning as he was coming out of Ole Miss. I am guessing, and this is just a guess, but this very reason could have been why the Giants traded for Manning. I can't say for sure, but that's just my guess. Peter discusses, yet again, the trade that brought Eli to New York on draft day in 2004. In his defense, it has been two weeks since he brought up that draft day trade. Peter then throws in a remembering of Whitney Houston (didn't know he was such a fan) and he has other Super Bowl leftovers for us to (not) enjoy.

The week-after-the-Big-One column is heavy on the Giants, as it should be.

Rightfully so. Justly done. Also, when Peter says MMQB is heavy on "the Giants" he means "Eli Manning and I won't mention the Giants defense but once or twice and I will never mention the part they played in helping the Giants win the Super Bowl." Really, 1/3 of this column is probably about matters relating to Eli Manning and not the Giants as a whole team.

For example, rather than tell us how the Giants picked Jason Pierre-Paul over Derrick Morgan (who was higher ranked on a lot of boards), Peter tells us yet again what led the Giants to trade for Eli Manning on draft day in 2004.

And I'd be remiss if I didn't touch on the greatest Anthem I've ever heard at a game -- the late Whitney Houston's, 21 years ago.

I'm pretty sure the anthem was pre-recorded. That took a lot of the magic out of it for me. It was a great sound record or pre-recorded. Not sure this really merits too much mentioning in a football column. Still, Peter needs to kill space and even the loosest of ties to the NFL will do during the offseason.

We'll start in the stands at a football game in the small city of Oxford, Miss., a little more than nine years ago.

Scene 1: Nov. 2, 2002, Oxford, Miss.

"Scene 1." Sweet God, is Peter really pretending this is a play? I hope there is at least two intermissions. This is ridiculous.

Scene 2: Dec. 12, 2004, Baltimore. The one thing Eli Manning always has had is poise. That's what makes this horror show at the Ravens so weird, and so troubling.

This was a horror show because it was Eli Manning's rookie year and he was going up against a very good Baltimore defense. I remember this game because Manning was absolutely terrible, but a rookie quarterback struggling against a very good Ravens defense isn't troubling.

In the fourth start of his Giants' career, Manning was the definition of pathetic, four of 18 for 27 yards, with no touchdowns and two interceptions ... for a 0.0 passer rating. In the press box, one veteran Giants scribe took to calling Eli "Billy Ripken'' over and over again. As in, "The brother of a great player who'll just never make it.''

This veteran Giants scribe is now probably signing the praises of Manning and saying how he will be in the Hall of Fame. I feel like this scribe is Mike Lupica, even though I'm not sure how much he covers the Giants in-depth enough to be at a game. The one guarantee I feel comfortable making is this veteran Giants scribe (who will remain nameless for fear he will be shown as the reactionary sportswriter I imagine he would have to be in order to make a declaratory judgment on a quarterback based only on four starts) doesn't feel this way about Manning now and doesn't want this comment mentioned. God forbid a sports journalist is judged for making knee-jerk reactionary statements that are eventually proven completely wrong so we can put his (probable) current columns praising Manning in the right perspective. Absolutely don't give us this sportswriter's name.

The other day I asked Gilbride to pick the plays on that drive he thought were the crucial ones. He picked two. "The one to Manningham, of course,'' he said, "and a quick slant to Nicks. We were not settling for the field goal. No way.

Absolutely no freaking way the Giants were going for a field goal there. None at all. Not gonna happen.

Not unless we had to.

Unless they needed to of course. They would settle for a field goal if necessary. I mean, it could happen.

Two vital passes against Auburn, a streak down the left side and, on a Manning audible, a quick slant: Gain of 52.

Two vital passes against the Patriots, a streak down the left side and, on a Manning audible, a quick slant: Gain of 52.

Peter King is fascinated by parallels like this. He'll find one game where a quarterback led a 75 yard drive in college and then he will put it right below a 75 yard drive that quarterback had in a big game in the NFL and act like he just discovered the Ark of the Covenant.

Remember what happened in 2004. The Giants could have stayed where they were on draft day, at number four in the first round, and taken Miami of Ohio's Ben Roethlisberger. But Accorsi traded a bushel full of picks to San Diego to get Manning.

Oh my God, if Peter talks about this trade one more time I'm probably going to scream. I know of three separate times when Peter King has talked about the Giants-Chargers trade from 2004 this year. It was a very important trade, I know that, but can we stop mentioning it just once? We know Eli got traded to the Giants. We remember this.

In his split-second look to the left, Manning saw Manningham with a step or step-and-a-half on corner Sterling Moore, with Chung, hips open to the left and inside the numbers, with very far to turn and run to break up the play if Manning threw left to Manningham.

Peter is going on and on about Eli Manning now. When he said the Giants deserved credit so that's why he would be talking about them, I assumed he would mention the Giants defense a few times. He doesn't. Peter focuses on Eli Manning and how well he throws the football, so screw you New York Giants' defense.

I have been thinking about this throw by Eli Manning and I don't want to seem like I am taking anything away from the throw, but while it was an excellent throw it was also a fairly safe throw. I mean that as a credit to Eli Manning, not a criticism. I'm not taking anything away from Eli. The way he threw that football over Manningham's shoulder to the sidelines was far enough over to where the safety wasn't going to get there in time and the ball wasn't going to be in the field of play if caught by the safety. Also, the corner covering Manningham wasn't in a position to react to the football and make the catch. It was an incredible throw, but the way Eli threw the ball only Manningham could catch it and if he didn't catch it there wasn't much of a chance of a turnover. So it was a great throw, but the way he made the throw it really wasn't a risky throw. It doesn't take anything away from Manning of course. He is the one who actually made the great throw, but I think what makes that pass and catch so great is there was little chance of the ball being intercepted and only Manningham could have made the catch.

The greatest anthem ever sung. Well, in my opinion it was Whitney Houston's before Super Bowl XXV -- and I say that even though what we heard was recorded a couple of weeks before the game in a Los Angeles sound studio.

It was a great national anthem. It was also not sung live, so it was the greatest recording of the national anthem ever played prior to a football game. I don't consider the national anthem to be "sung" if a recording is being played over the loudspeaker while Whitney Houston sings into a dead microphone. I am part of the 1% of Americans who care about this. It doesn't mean this wasn't the greatest national anthem ever. It just means it wasn't sung live on the field, which would have made it greater in my mind.

Jim Steeg was the NFL's senior vice president of special events and he organized all aspects of the Super Bowl for 26 years. He booked Houston for the Super Bowl, and he was still shaken up by her stunning Saturday death when we spoke Sunday.

"Last night, [wife] Jill and I sat here, totally devastated,'' Steeg said from his San Diego home. "I have Whitney's anthem on my iPod, and last night I just sat here and listened to it. I got chills. I always get chills when I hear it. That was such a special moment in my life.''

At the risk of sounding insensitive, really? "Totally devastated." That seems a bit dramatic upon hearing the death of someone Steeg spoke last with probably 20 years ago and did not have interaction with over nearly the last two decades. I'm not making Houston's death seem less tragic or sad, but it always shocks and even amuses me at how people take the death of a celebrity like they lost a family member. Yeah, it gives you pause and makes you a little sad at first. But if you didn't know Whitney Houston or had not talked to her in over a decade, isn't it a bit much to be "totally devastated" or really shaken up by her death? She used drugs, had enablers around her and lived the life of a celebrity with a shit ton of money. Premature death isn't exactly foreign in those situations.

I'm surprised Peter doesn't breathlessly draw a parallel between Whitney Houston dying with the Giants winning the Super Bowl this year and Houston singing the national anthem at the Super Bowl where the Giants ended up winning two decades ago. They are the same game!

The difference with this anthem was that Houston actually sang it on the field before the game -- in front of a dead mike. "I was on the Giants sidelines, standing right behind Lawrence Taylor and Carl Banks,'' said Steeg. "I heard her. It was fabulous.''

She was a great singer. I'm sure it was great. This is still lip-syncing if the words coming out of the speakers at the stadium aren't the words she is singing live.

Said Steeg: "Lip-syncing is the wrong phrase. She sang it. I heard it.

Nope, it is the right phrase. She wasn't singing into a live microphone live. That's lip-synching.

And the emotion on the field when she was finished was noticeable. I saw it on the faces of the Giants.

Steeg is referring to Whitney Houston actually singing into the dead microphone. The players were responding to the pre-recorded track. I really doubt they could hear Whitney Houston's live singing into a dead microphone over the loud track being played through the speakers. It was a great rendition of the national anthem, but it was pre-recorded and she was lip-synching. It doesn't take anything away from the performance, but it was not live. I will argue this until the end of days.

I'll never forget Taylor saying to Banks -- you think these guys are so intent on the game right then -- but he said, 'Oh my God! Is she good-looking!' ''

Unfortunately she was over the age of 18, so Lawrence Taylor wasn't that interested in Whitney Houston. Though later when she got into cocaine, she did look pretty attractive to Lawrence Taylor.

"If the committee switched up on the guys every five years or whatever ... I think some players would like to see some changes in who is doing the selection process every year because most of the time I think it's the same voters that come in and do all the voting. Outside looking in I would like to see a little more change up on who votes.''

-- New Pro Football Hall of Fame enshrinee Willie Roaf, on ESPN 101 in St. Louis, via sportsradiointerviews.com.

You guys (and girls?) know I am all about kicking backwards-thinking voters out of position to vote for the Hall of Fame, no matter what sport. The problem with changing it up every five years is there would be voters for the Hall of Fame who don't have the experience to vote for some of these older players, not to mention I would probably rather a fairly consistent group of voters are present so every five years the criteria for making the Hall of Fame won't change or be altered. It just seems to me like there should be voters added and the votes can be made public. Adding voters and making the votes public (or at least allowing the voters to make them public) could help change things up.

Then Peter's "Stat of the Week" is about Eli Manning and Ben Roethlisberger. Because apparently he doesn't feel he's talked about it enough.

These two will always be compared to each other, because of the Draft Day 2004 circumstances. The one thing we can say about them: Neither the Giants nor Steelers were cheated with the man they picked.

Good point. Let's beat this idea in the ground some more.

a. I've seen 43 people try to spin the Wes Welker non-catch into some deep way of trying to understand why it was too difficult a catch to call a drop. An NFL coach told Greg Bedard of the Boston Globe his team would not have called that a drop. Whatever. The fact is, that ball contacted the palms of both of Welker's hands cleanly, and he was not touched by a Giant defender. Call it a drop. Don't call it a drop. I don't care. But Wes Welker has to make that catch. Has to.

I absolutely agree. A lot of people are knocking Brady for that throw, but it was in Welker's hands, so he has to catch that. Peter King and I agree. The world is ending.

This throw by Brady is being used as Example #1 that he is now overrated and rapidly on the decline. Welker had the ball on his hands and has to catch it. He wasn't in traffic and the ball was behind him, but not too far behind him. It was a poor throw and a poor catch.

b. Regarding Matt Light and Rob Gronkowski dancing the night away after the Super Bowl loss: I don't care. I don't know why anyone should care.

I don't care about Gronkowski dancing like he was, but when I saw the video I noticed he was moving very well for a guy who required surgery later in the week. I know there is a difference in playing football and dancing, but he was moving extraordinarily well. Obviously, he was alcohol-aided. Perhaps he should have gotten drunk and played in the Super Bowl.

The only reason the public found out about Light and Gronkowski is because everyone in America has a camera phone today, and nothing is truly private.

That's like saying the only reason a person was arrested for robbing a bank is because newspapers tend to report crimes. It really isn't an excuse any more than it is a reason not to rob a bank (or dance violently in this case). Camera phones are everywhere, so if Light or Gronkowski were worried about someone seeing them dance then they probably should have not entered the dance floor. Clearly, Gronkowski wasn't concerned at the time about who saw him dancing.

f. Are you telling me we have to wait until the fall of 2015 for another Giants-Patriots game, at least one that doesn't happen in the Super Bowl. Booooooo!

Does this mean we will have to pay attention to other NFL teams when they play each other? Say it isn't so!

g. Last four Giants-Pats games: New York 97, New England 89.

h. Last five Giants-Pats game: New England 106, New York 103.

According to these statistics the Patriots won the Super Bowl. 17-6. Actually, this whole statistic doesn't make sense to me at all. Maybe I'm missing something, but I think Peter has this statistics backwards or messed up in a way. The Giants went into the Super Bowl having outscored the Patriots over the last four games by 8 points, won the Super Bowl and have now gotten outscored by the Patriots by 3 points?

(Thanks to HH and J-dub for pointing out in the comments that Peter is working backwards to where the 5th game was a 17-6 game in 2003. I thought the last four games were all games prior to the Super Bowl and the Super Bowl this year was the fifth game. I didn't think we were working backwards, but working forwards where the Super Bowl this year was the 5th game. Hence my confusion.)

2. I think these are my Hall of Fame thoughts, as one of 44 voters who has been taking kill shots on various parts of my body in the last eight days:

This to be expected. When you have a secretive voting process combined with results that interest the general public it tends to create some criticism. Don't like it? Resign your position and don't vote for the football Hall of Fame next year.

b. Now, if you want term limits, you have to understand what you'll be getting. You'll be throwing out veteran NFL media folk and importing some less-experienced ones, in many cases. I understand the sentiment to throw the bums out, as in Congress. But I would ask this question: Do you want a new panel of bums if most of the replacements haven't covered the NFL long enough to have worked a game that Andre Reed played in?

Again, for fear of agreeing with Peter King...I agree with Peter King. Kicking the voters off the panel will get the bums out, but it will also cause voters with less experience to be voting. Maybe that's a good thing and a person wouldn't need to see Andre Reed play in order to vote "yes" or "no" to his induction. Though I am always critical of the "you had to be there to see him play" test, would rather a person who had seen Andre Reed play for most of his career vote for whether Reed should be in the Hall of Fame or not.

c. I work with and like Mike Florio. But as I told him the other day, it's personally insulting to read him say the 44 committee members are in this, in part, as some sort of power trip to hold some sway over the people we cover. I can speak for one person on the committee -- me. And I don't do this for the power.

Peter definitely does it for the ladies though.

e. Regarding players, coaches and club officials being on the committee instead of media people: Fine with me. If it happens, though, I believe it has to be 32 additional voters -- one former player, coach or club officials per team. I actually think this would be good. To have Bill Polian, Ron Wolf, Sonny Jurgensen, Dan Dierdorf, Bill Cowher, Nat Moore and Mike Haynes would be refreshing and smart. Now, the meeting would likely have to be two days long; the meeting this year was 7 hours and 34 minutes with 44 people.

Two days long? Well, nevermind then. We can't spend that much time deciding which NFL players/executives/coaches deserve the highest honor the sport has. These decisions need to be made in a day or less. No sense in wasting too much time on such trivial matters like which players deserve to be in the Hall of Fame.

The only problem with having club officials on the board is if Bill Polian or Ron Wolf's name appears on the Hall of Fame ballot as a candidate. That's the only problem with having club officials vote and that's if an official is well-known enough to be voting for the Hall of Fame, there is a chance that official could also appear on the ballot.

h. When you tell me, "You're an idiot for leaving Parcells and Carter out of the Hall of Fame,'' tell me which two enshrinees you'd have left out.

Floyd Little. Last year. Yeah, he was great in his time, but he should not be in over Cris Carter. Little averaged less than 4 yards per carry during his career and had one 1000 yard season. So I would put Carter in over Little. Maybe I just hate old people. So Cris Carter can get in over Little last year and I have no issue with Parcells not getting in the Hall of Fame. I'm not sure I would vote for him myself.

6. I think all teams needing a wide receiver in free agency should line up for Mario Manningham. I don't see the Giants making anything but a cursory effort to sign Manningham, who likely will get at least $7 million a year somewhere. He believes he can play to a star level in the league and that he hasn't had the chance.

Every player believes he can be a star in the NFL if given the chance. Someone is really going to give Manningham $7 million per season? I'm not saying he isn't worth it, but if I am the Giants I am not giving him $7 million per season to be the third wide receiver. I disagree with Peter teams should line up to sign Manningham to a contract worth $7 million per year. Manningham had a good year (and an even better 2010), but I feel like $7 million per year for him would be a mistake.

8. I think the phrase "plays well with others,'' will be important for former Chiefs head coach Todd Haley to remember if he hopes to have success as the offensive coordinator in Pittsburgh. He left behind some poor relationships in Kansas City -- and not just with GM Scott Pioli. Haley has to bond with Roethlisberger and help the QB produce at a consistent playoff level, while keeping three talented receivers content. It'll be an interesting chemistry experiment.

I'm not a Todd Haley fan. He's burned bridges at nearly every single one of his stops. How can this be ignored? He pissed off people in Kansas City, argued with Kurt Warner and Anquan Boldin in Arizona, and argued with Terrell Owens in Dallas. I don't get why a team would hire Haley in any position. He just joined the Steelers and is already causing problems because he may not have been Mike Tomlin or Ben Roethlisberger's choice as offensive coordinator.

b. My gym in New York always has those Housewives of ... shows on. I have peeked. Is this what we have come to as a society?

c. That's how old I am.

The same people who watch these "Housewives of..." shows also read Peter's column. The same general public consumes both. That should be scary for him.
h. I haven't shaved since Super Bowl Sunday. How do I look?

With no picture along side this question, it's hard to tell. You do have a few cupcake crumbs in your beard I am guessing though.

i. Coffeenerdness: You're too inconsistent with the lattes, Manhattan Starbucks. I haven't owned an espresso machine for a few years, but I'll be getting one this week.

Fuck you Manhattan Starbucks! Now you've forced Peter King to get an espresso machine. That's right, instead of quarterly profits of $2.09 billion you will have quarterly profits of $2.09 billion. Hope you've learned your lesson.

l. Don't get used to 7,000-word columns in the offseason. Just got a little wordy over the weekend. Next week: Free-agent lists and opinions.

Next week's MMQB will be full of opinions? As long as they aren't about the Red Sox I think we can handle it. I'm kidding of course, every opinion will be about the Red Sox and how they don't spend enough money, but the money they do spend only goes to bums who can't hit or pitch a baseball.