Showing posts with label end of football season. Show all posts
Showing posts with label end of football season. Show all posts

Tuesday, February 3, 2015

9 comments MMQB Review: The Greatest Super Bowl Ever Until The Next Closely Contested Super Bowl is the Greatest Super Bowl Ever Edition

Peter King gave his readers vocabulary lessons in last week's MMQB. He also gave a few thoughts about the NBA season, all while stating that he knows nothing about the NBA and doesn't really watch professional basketball much. Peter was also upset at Marshawn Lynch for grabbing his crotch (Lynch grabbed his own crotch, not Peter's crotch...though it would be interesting if Lynch did grab Peter's crotch instead of his own), while enjoying a few good jokes about balls. This week Peter talks about the exciting Super Bowl that took EVERYONE'S breath away ("we" didn't know that would happen!), talks about the Pro Football Hall of Fame inductees, and sort of screws up his "Goat of the Week" again. A little bit. He blames one person when there are probably two or more people to blame. Russell Wilson seems to be off the hook for throwing the pass in the first place, which I'm not sure should be the case. Still the play call was bad, but I blame Wilson for 25% of the interception since he threw the ball.

Pacific Northwest: What are we doing throwing at the 1 with three shots to let Marshawn Lynch win the game?!

Exactly. Just an absurd play call. I thought the Patriots were going to let the Seahawks score so they could get the ball back to Brady.

New England: Great play by a guy we never heard of!

I had heard of Butler, so I imagine Patriots fans had heard of him too. Just because Peter King had not heard of Butler doesn't mean no one else had heard of him. Though assuming because he had not heard of Butler then no one else had either, and using "we" in making this statement, is typical Peter King.

The Super Bowl That Took Our Breath Away has a good ring to it.

Actually it doesn't because it sounds like a bad 80's song.

What happened there is the essence of what Bill Belichick is as a coach.

As Belichick spoke, offensive coordinator Josh McDaniels took his blue Sharpie and wrote two things on the top of his laminated play-call sheet he’d carry with him on the sideline in Super Bowl XLIX. Whenever McDaniels looked down at the sheet, he’d see these two bold reminders:


ADJUST


CORRECT PROBLEMS AND GET THEM FIXED

Said McDaniels: “What Bill said was, ‘This game is no different than any other one. It’s a 60-minute football game, and whatever issues we have, let’s make sure we correct them, coach them, and fix them. That’s our job.’

John Fox doesn't understand what you are talking about. Adjust? You mean, "Do the same thing you have done all season and refuse to double or put your best corner on the other team's best wide receiver if he is killing you?"

Example two saved the game for New England. Of that there is no doubt. Adjust. Correct problems and get them fixed. Early in the third quarter, with the Patriots getting abused by the size of out-of-nowhere Seahawks rookie receiver Chris Matthews, another undrafted rookie, cornerback Malcolm Butler from the University of West Alabama began playing in the nickel. Butler got the nickname “Scrap” for being a scrappy player in mini-camp, not backing down. The coaches liked him because when they’d quiz players about assignments, they could tell he’d been studying tape and knew how to anticipate what was coming.

That's probably because undrafted players work harder than highly-drafted glory boys. Obviously.

The Seahawks spread their formation at the one, despite having an Earl Campbell type of bruising runner, Marshawn Lynch, plus one timeout, on their side. “I knew they were going to throw it,” said Butler. “From preparation, I remembered the formation they were in and I knew they were doing a pick route.”

Well, Wilson didn't have to throw the ball on the pick route, but I guess that's a discussion for later in this MMQB Review. It's amazing how film study pays off. It's nice to read about NFL players that watch film and learn from it, rather than my favorite team sometimes looking like they haven't ever seen a forward pass before, much less a forward pass with this crazy formation.

Kearse was supposed to pick the corner trying to stay with Lockette. Wilson threw. Butler burst through the poor pick and made an easy catch.

I know the Seahawks were trying to stay away from Revis, but to expect Kearse to pick a big, physical corner like Brandon Browner? I don't know, that seems like not the best strategy either. Browner makes some bone-headed plays in the secondary, but he's big and physical.

Butler was shellshocked by it all, standing by his locker after the game, and Patriots PR czar Stacey James was explaining to him how his life was about to change, and suddenly owner Robert Kraft appeared. The shock in Butler’s face was precious.

It was precious. Not precocious, but precious. Peter has replaced the word he loves to use that gives grown men child-like qualities and replaced it with a word that gives grown men cute, child-like qualities. He just can't help himself. Butler looked so precious that Peter just wanted to lick him. He's not sure why, but Peter just wanted to lick Butler's face because of the preciousness that was radiating from him. Butler was like a new mother radiating love, lying in wait for her child to be handed to her for the first time, except the baby is Robert Kraft in this situation and Butler is the mother. Precious AND precocious.

“Mr. Kraft would like a photo of you with him and the Lombardi Trophy,” someone said, and Butler, in his skivvies and game T-shirt, trying to comprehend what was happening, sheepishly stood next to Kraft and smiled for the cameras.

Oh yes, Butler was in his skivvies and looking precious. Peter noticed both because he was leering at Butler for a full five minutes, just wondering what child-like quality to assign him during this moment so that Peter could close his eyes and remember this image for the rest of his life.

Now for the sandpaper to the cheek to all you 12s, the newest and most fervent and suddenly loyal fan base in the country.
 
That was the dumbest big play-call in Super Bowl history.

Maybe Wilson shouldn’t have thrown it.

Maybe. Very debatable. I was initially blaming Wilson for 50% of the interception since he threw the ball. Then I saw this angle of what he was looking at...




A few things about that picture:

1. It's easy to second-guess based on a still picture hours after the play has occurred. So I feel silly analyzing a play that happened so quickly. Yet, I will continue to analyze.

2. I still think Wilson shouldn't have thrown the ball, but I completely understand why he did throw it. Please remember that Wilson is a professional quarterback. This is what he does for a living. To me, Lockette looks open, but Wilson has thrown this pass many times in practice and in games. He does know and should know how much time he has to sneak that ball in to the receiver.

3. Notice in that picture that Butler has already made a break on the ball and it's still in Wilson's hand. Butler is closer to the goal line than Lockette is and as Lockette continues his route toward the end zone, Butler will also get closer to the point where the ball is being thrown, so it's going to be a close completion.

4. Given the terribleness of the play call, as a professional quarterback I don't know if I still throw this ball with all that's at stake. If I do and given Butler is breaking on the ball, I would lead Lockette a bit less to where the ball went more into his body and he is the only person who can catch the pass. A throw more into Lockette's body could have shielded the ball from Butler. Here is another idea. See that wide open space in the middle where the Pats safety is standing at the "A" in Seahawks? Use that area to your advantage, rather than throw the slant to where it's a contested ball. This would cut the route off a bit, but Lockette probably could have straightened the route out just a bit seeing the open end zone he had in front of him, knowing there was a Pats defender right behind Browner who is supposed to have been picked. So if Lockette and Wilson get on the same page to straighten the route out a bit to avoid the traffic (and there are no linebackers in the middle of the field) or Wilson threw the ball more into Lockette's body, then it looks like a touchdown.

5. So my point is I don't blame Wilson as much as I did. But in a situation like this, that will be a close completion and Russell Wilson knows that. He's a professional, he knows how much time he has even if Butler doesn't jump the route. Given the fact the play was for a Super Bowl victory, I think Wilson had to know he would want to have Lockette straighten out his route slightly more while leading Lockette more to the left (Lockette's right) with the pass to take Butler out of the play completely (though the pass may have Lockette slightly short of the goal line and Brown could have tackled Lockette short of the goal line), throw the ball more into Lockette's body while not changing the route at all, or if there is any chance of an interception, just throw the ball away. He needed to be super-careful and he wasn't. I may have thrown the pass, but I'm also not a professional quarterback who has practiced this route repeatedly. From that picture, it's clear Wilson has a clear view of Butler and Lockette, so he knew he was throwing it into some traffic. It's 25%-30% his fault (and those are EXACT percentages).

6. Serious question. IF Wilson didn't see Butler, could it be possible that's because he's under six feet tall and had issues seeing over the linemen in that situation? 

Maybe he should have thrown it out of the end zone. But I’m not blaming Wilson for the play. It wasn’t an audible.

I wouldn't expect you to blame Wilson at all. After all, he gets the credit for great passes, why should he be blamed for a bad pass that he didn't HAVE to make? The play call was bad, but Wilson didn't have to throw the ball. If he didn't like what he saw, he could have had it in his mind to run right, scramble and make something out of nothing. He's very, very good at that type of thing.

The play came from the sidelines, from offensive coordinator Darrell Bevell. Though coach Pete Carroll took the blame afterward, it’s not his call, and it sounded very much like Carroll falling on his sword for a coach on his staff. Whatever, this was a play you simply do not call.

Look, I get it. It was a bad play call. But don't act like Wilson is a robot who has to do exactly everything he's told. He freelances all the time. I don't want Wilson to take all the blame, but at least point the finger at him a bit. Don't spare him because you like him.

New England didn’t call timeout. Belichick is brilliant, and I’m sure he had his reasons. (He said he’d have called time if the Seahawks had run the next play and not scored, but by then, with 20 seconds left, there wouldn’t have been enough time left to do anything fruitful if Seattle scored.) But I think that’s a huge mistake. If New England calls time there, and Seattle scores on the next play, the Patriots get the ball back, down 31-28, with about 50 seconds left. That’s far preferable to getting it back down 31-28 with two timeouts and, say, 18 seconds left.

I didn't understand that either. I thought the Patriots should have let the Seahawks score on first down or called timeout in that spot. It was an odd decision. If the Patriots were going to let the Seahawks score, they should have done so. If the Patriots were going to try and prevent a TD then they should have called timeout after first down just in case the Seahawks did score a TD. If they are digging in, at least give the offense more time if things go wrong.

One Patriot told me a couple of things that made sense. He thought Belichick bypassed the the timeout because the coach was comfortable defensively—as comfortable as he could be with who was on the field trying to stop Lynch—and that a timeout would have given Seattle a chance to stop and consider different plays, and why give the enemy more time to think?

I mean, yeah, that is the only reason I could think of. On the same line of thought, the Seahawks weren't exactly hurrying to the line and had plenty of time to think of different plays while the game clock ticked down.

Carroll’s explanation:

“We sent in our personnel. They sent in goal-line [defense]. It’s not the right matchup for us to run the football, so on second down we throw the ball really to kind of waste that play.

I've got so many things to say about this. It's not the right matchup to run the ball? Pete Carroll is going to let the opposing team dictate when the Seahawks run the ball? When did this start? He's never worried about it before. Also, they were going to throw the ball and waste that play? Just waste a fucking play? This just strengthens my argument Wilson should have thrown the ball away. If he knows it's a wasted play, he needs to tuck the ball down or throw it out of the end zone if he doesn't see exactly what he wants to see.

If we score we do, if we don’t, then we’ll run it in on third and fourth down. Really, with no second thoughts or no hesitation in that at all.

This is a dumbass explanation. What if the Patriots have their goal-line defense in at that point? What to do then? Why is Pete Carroll letting the defense dictate his offensive strategy and take away his best offensive weapon?

And unfortunately, with the play that we tried to execute, [Butler] makes a great play and jumps in front of the route and makes an incredible play that nobody would ever think he could do. And unfortunately that changes the whole outcome.

If Wilson knew the second down throw was a wasted play, his pass makes even less sense. If he didn't know it was a wasted play, then perhaps someone should have told him.

Of course, Bill Belichick is comfortable in close games. It’s the one thing I’ve always noticed about him.

The Seahawks played close games all the time over the past two seasons. They are used to close games, but this one just didn't turn out their way. Peter has ALWAYS noticed Belichick likes close games. "We" didn't notice, but Peter did. Now Peter is trying to push a "the Patriots and Belichick are used to close games" narrative like this isn't true for the Seahawks as well.

Check out the scores of the six New England Super Bowls in the Belichick/Brady Era:


Super Bowl 36: Patriots 20, Rams 17.  
Super Bowl 38: Patriots 32, Panthers 29. (NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!)
Super Bowl 39: Patriots 24, Eagles 21.
Super Bowl 42: Giants 17, Patriots 14.
Super Bowl 46: Giants 21, Patriots 17.
Super Bowl 49: Patriots 28, Seahawks 24.

But think about it: The Patriots are two miracle Giant passing plays—the David Tyree Velcro catch seven years ago, and the Eli Manning-to-Mario Manningham miracle completion three years ago—from a 6-0 Super Bowl record in a 14-year span … and being the greatest team since the AFL-NFL merger in 1970.

They are also a completed pass and two missed field goals away from potentially being 1-5 in the Super Bowl. What's your fucking point? It goes both ways.

“Even though we were behind in the fourth quarter,” McDaniels said, “we didn’t want to start abandoning the game plan, because you really can’t. They don’t allow you to do that. So I thought it took a lot of poise for our guys to understand, ‘Look, it’s not going to happen on four plays against these guys. We’re going to need a 12-play drive, or an 11-play drive, we’re going to have to convert some third downs and that was really the feeling on the sideline. It was stay with what we’ve talked about the last two weeks: patience and poise. We knew it was going to be an execution game. And it was! Meaning you have to catch a six-yard catch, get tackled, get up, do it again.

Then possibly skip the concussion protocol, get back in the game, try to figure out where the hell you are, and then catch the game-winning touchdown pass.

And then the Patriots agonized over the fluky but great Kearse catch while on the ground (“David Tyree on steroids,” Jonathan Kraft called it), and waited for someone to make a play, which Butler did.

If the Patriots had lost the game on that fluky catch by Jermaine Kearse I may have had to tap out reading a Bill Simmons column forever. He would have been absolutely insufferable with his whining and bitching about how the Patriots were three fluky plays (two fluky plays in reality and both of them didn't decide the game any more than the eventual game-winning touchdown really decided the game) away from being 6-0 in the Super Bowl, while forgetting John Kasay spotted the Patriots 20 yards in Super Bowl 38 by kicking the ball out of bounds. Because that wasn't fluky and happens all the time in the Super Bowl.

In the 49-season Super Bowl era, only one other coach-quarterback combination (Chuck Noll/Terry Bradshaw) has won four. Next opening night—Sept. 10, 2015, at Gillette Stadium—Belichick will be 63 and Brady 38, and the press box wags will say the Patriots are too old to repeat. “Age is a number,” Brady will say about 64 times between now and then. Sunday night in the desert, he and Belichick proved they’re not done yet.

Well, damn. Peter has that narrative all written out now doesn't he? He knows what "the press box wags" will say and he knows what Brady will say in response. What's weird is how Peter doesn't mention he is one of those "press box wags" that started to write the Patriots off earlier in the year.

I had a strange moment Saturday in an upstairs ballroom at the Phoenix Convention Center, site of the voting for the 53rd class of the Hall of Fame.

You called a grown man precocious and he punched you? You stared at someone so long in public that you forgot where you were?

The list of 10: Jerome Bettis, Tim Brown, Tony Dungy, Kevin Greene, Charles Haley, Marvin Harrison, Orlando Pace, Junior Seau, Will Shields, Kurt Warner. 

I marked an X next to Bettis, Haley, Seau and Shields. Now I was stuck. Dungy and Pace were worthy, in my mind.

It's ridiculous to me that Bettis gets a vote over Orlando Pace and Marvin Harrison on anyone's ballot. That's a benefit of Jerome Bettis being all smiles and friendly with the media. He gets an honor he possibly should have received, but received the honor before others who I believe to be more deserving.

But as I winnowed, I found myself in a three-way mental tie for the fifth X: Brown, Greene and Harrison.

Few things are more exciting than to be in the mind of an Pro Football Hall of Fame voter. I like how Peter states he doesn't want to take his readers through the play-by-play of the Super Bowl, but he doesn't mind taking his readers through the play-by-play of his Hall of Fame vote.

I'll spare you the play-by-play. Greene is underappreciated, Harrison is the better receiver with the better quarterback throwing him the ball, but he didn't have the diverse skill set that Tim Brown had. That's about it.

I really wanted Greene in. I absolutely thought Brown was deserving. I marked the X next to Harrison. I just thought he was a better receiver by the eye test. But not by much. I folded the ballot, handed it to the auditor and sat back in my chair. Felt like I’d just run three miles.

Yes, being one of 46 people to have the privilege of voting for the Pro Football Hall of Fame is such a chore. Peter's diamond shoes are too tight and his wallet can't fit all of his $50 bills in it.

Some of my takeaways from the vote:

Good. Some of Peter's thoughts. We hardly get these in MMQB every week. 

I would have voted yes on 12 of the 15 modern-era candidates had they made it to the final five. Many in the room feel the same way. So it’s not that “we don’t think player X is a Hall of Famer.” It’s that we can only put in five per season, plus the three Seniors and Contributors.

I personally think this should be changed. I know the Hall of Fame is for elite football players only, but to only be able to elect five players seems like a small number to me, especially given they can elect three Senior and Contributors every year.

This was a cleanup year to me, with four new members (Charles Haley, Tim Brown, Jerome Bettis, Will Shields) who’d waited a combined 26 years for entry … Marvin Harrison is upset about missing for the second straight year, and I get it. It’s not going to get easier, either, with Terrell Owens, Hines Ward and Randy Moss joining Isaac Bruce and Torry Holt on the waiting list in the coming years

Yet another reason why there should be more than five candidates who can make it into the Hall of Fame in a given year. Players who deserve induction are going to have to wait or end up clogged in the pipeline waiting for their induction. I can't wait for Hines Ward to make it over Marvin Harrison. Hines is so friendly with the media and is a part of the media. He'll definitely make it and I'm sure some shit about "he was a great blocker" will be mentioned repeatedly.

The leading candidates to be finalists for future Hall of Fame classes:

2016: Brett Favre, Terrell Owens, Alan Faneca, Darren Sharper. 

2017: LaDainian Tomlinson, Brian Dawkins, Donovan McNabb, Jason Taylor, Hines Ward, Matt Light, Derrick Mason, Joey Porter. 

2018: Ray Lewis, Randy Moss, Ronde Barber, Steve Hutchinson, Brian Urlacher, Donald Driver, Jeff Saturday.

2019: Tony Gonzalez, Ed Reed, Champ Bailey.

Players are going to get jammed up in the Hall of Fame pipeline. I claim to be a Hall of Fame snob, but the way the Pro Football Hall of Fame does the voting they are testing my claim. I don't think the Pro Football Hall of Fame should just elect decent players, which is what I would characterize most of these names listed as, but I think Marvin Harrison should be in. If he smiled a lot and was from Detroit maybe he would be in this year.

Armen Keteyian has an eye-opening interview with NFL executive vice president of football operations Troy Vincent on Showtime’s “60 Minutes Sports” show that airs Tuesday night.

Two things surprised me the most. Vincent admitted it was Colts GM Ryan Grigson who turned in the Patriots for the suspected underinflated football.

Ah, so Grigson was the snitch? Maybe he's still salty about spending first round picks on Trent Richardson and Bjoern Werner.

And there was this exchange with Keteyian that, quite frankly, makes Vincent look just terrible, regarding the exhaustive investigation of the Ray Rice case by former FBI director Robert Mueller:

Keteyian: “Did you read the Mueller report?” Vincent: “No sir.” 

Keteyian: “You did not?”
 

Vincent: “No sir.”
 
 

Keteyian: “And as the head of game operations in your position, why not?”
 

Vincent: “The crime had already been committed … There was a ton of public speculation at the time what we did, what we didn’t do. We acknowledge we made a mistake. We didn’t apply the proper discipline. I’m not sure how much we can continue to keep talking about that particular …”

Ah, the NFL. Why would Vincent read the Mueller Report? He knew the "exhaustive" report that was requested by the NFL was just going to say some kind of mean things about how the league handled the situation and he knew what the outcome would be. What's the purpose of reading the report when you know the ending?

The Super Bowl Awards

Peter's awards get a new name for this week. Very exciting times.

Defensive Player of the Week
 
Malcolm Butler, cornerback, New England. Butler spent most of the postgame in a daze. He seemed unable to comprehend what just happened.

It was sooooooooo precious.

And it was his interception at the goal line with 20 seconds left in the game and Seattle driving for the winning touchdown that gives Butler a spot in New England sports lore forever. Just as Dave Roberts’ stolen base ignited the Red Sox to four straight wins over the Yankees in the ALCS in 2004, Butler’s interception always will be remembered from Bridgeport to Bangor. 

Malcolm Butler is the new Dave Roberts. I'm sure it won't get annoying when Bill Simmons refers to Malcolm Butler repeatedly in his mailbags/columns as the new Dave Roberts.

Special Teams Player of the Week
 
Ryan Allen, punter, New England. There wasn’t a tremendous special teams performance on Sunday night in Super Bowl 49,

But someone HAS to win the award. It's not like Peter can just not award a Special Teams Player of the Week for the Super Bowl or anything. He HAS to name a player to win the award. Don't blame Peter, thems the rules.

Goat of the Week 
 
Darrell Bevell, offensive coordinator, Seattle. For years to come, fans of the Seahawks and just plain fans will ask one simple question about Super Bowl 49: What in the world was Seattle doing throwing a slant pass on second and goal from the 1, with one of the game’s best short yardage backs in the backfield?

It's so easy to name just one person as the Goat of the Week when it's not really that simple. Darrell Bevell thought Ricardo Lockette could have come stronger at the ball, I think the play call should have been something different, Lockette could have changed the route slightly to avoid Butler better, I think Wilson could have located the ball better, and I think Wilson could simply have not thrown the pass. There are three people who can be blamed, even though it was a failure by more than just three people. I know Peter HAS to name a "Goat of the Week," but to simply blame Bevell isn't necessarily fair. After all, Pete Carroll called it a "wasted play," so it's not like there were high expectations for a touchdown. Bevell deserves the most blame, but to pin it all on him doesn't seem right. He didn't throw the pass and better execution would have made the terrible play call a non-issue. 

It’s a question that will torment the Pacific Northwest for years and will make it difficult for Bevell ever to fulfill his dreams of becoming an NFL head coach. It simply was an incredibly wrong call. 

While I get that, there's nothing that was off about the execution of the play call? Again, Russell Wilson isn't a robot and is entirely capable of making decisions on his own. He's very good at making decisions on his own. Bevell made a terrible call, but it's just too complex for me to remove any blame from Russell Wilson or anyone else responsible. When Wilson made a great play, like when he led the Seahawks to their comeback over the Packers in the NFC Championship Game, I didn't read Peter talking about what a great set of play calls that Bevell called. Peter talked about Wilson being super-clutchy and coming up big when it matters. Why is it when Wilson gets good play calls the attention goes to him for executing them well, but when Wilson gets a bad play call it's just assumed Wilson is a robot and poor execution will obviously just happen? I'm not blaming Wilson, I simply find it interesting that Wilson is not really taking a ton of blame for throwing the ball. It was a bad play call (for the 100th time), but Wilson should know better about what he sees on the field than he did in this situation. 

“Yeah, I’ve seen two of them.”
 
—Bill Belichick, when asked if he’d ever seen a catch like Jermaine Kearse’s on-his-back sideline reception that set up Seattle, first and goal, with 70 seconds remaining. Belichick was referring to David Tyree’s helmet catch in Super Bowl XLII and Mario Manningham’s sideline snare in Super Bowl XLVI.

Come on. The Manningham catch was just a great catch and throw. That catch wasn't anything like the Kearse or Tyree catch. I don't consider them to be the same at all.

“I’m just here so I won’t get fined.”
 
Marshawn Lynch, at Media Day on Tuesday.
 
Lynch made a deal with the league: appear in media sessions (scheduled to be at least 45 minutes daily) for at least five minutes, or risk a heavy fine. So Lynch went and said silly things over and over.

What did anyone expect Lynch to say? He didn't want to be there and was forced to be there. I would probably have given better answers, but Lynch was forced to be there, so he was pissy about it.


I mean, really? Matthews was released by the Browns in 2011. That's three years ago and he worked at Foot Locker since then. He wasn't exactly on the Seahawks active roster either, he was on the practice squad. It's ridiculous to even think the Browns should in some way be ashamed for cutting Chris Matthews three years ago when he didn't do jack shit in the NFL until two days ago. No other NFL teams wanted Matthews either. Its not like the Browns missed on a great prospect. Quit with the shaming of the Browns for things they shouldn't be ashamed of. The Browns have screwed up enough things in the past decade without new things they screwed up being invented.

TEN THINGS I THINK I THINK

1. I think this is what I liked about Super Bowl week, and the game:

d. Russell Wilson rebounding from a bad start—again—to be very, very big when it mattered, except at the very end.

As I always write, what if Wilson was great in the beginning of the game, but terrible at the end? The narrative would just switch around about how Wilson is big when it matters, but his statistics would be the same. And Peter, Wilson was good "when it mattered"? It's the fucking Super Bowl. Wilson's performance matters in the first two quarters also, so don't give me that cliched shit to protect Wilson and your opinion of him. His performance mattered in the first two quarters, it just so happens he didn't turn the ball over and the Patriots weren't able to score too many points on the Seahawks' defense, so Wilson's performance during the first quarter and a half didn't put the Seahawks in a big hole. I mean, it's the Super Bowl. Every possession and quarter matters.

h. Doug Baldwin wisely using umpire Bill Schuster as an unofficial but obvious pick, rubbing off Darrelle Revis and getting open for a big third-quarter touchdown.

This is the play where Richard Sherman was so impressed with the official's pick of Revis that he started taunting Darrelle Revis by putting his hands up in a "2" and "4" so everyone knew who got beaten on that play.

k. Fifty throws by Brady. Didn’t seem that many, but he was fast and efficient, a 74 percent passer against the greatest defense of the day.

It completely felt like Brady threw the ball 50 times. At least to me.

m. Phoenix. The city and the region do a great job putting on the game. Scottsdale is one of the great areas in America.

A REAL UNDERRATED CITY. PETER WANTS TO KNOW WHY NOBODY TALKS ABOUT SCOTTSDALE AS A GREAT CITY!

2. I think this is what I didn’t like about Super Bowl week, and the game

c. Doug Baldwin, Stanford man, getting a 15-yard infraction in the biggest game of the year for simulating pulling down his pants in the end zone and simulating something else while the simulated pants were pulled down.

Yeah, that was gross and immature. I would expect more from an adult. Hey Peter, want me to make a few jokes about balls that you can snicker at?

d. What possesses a human being to do that? In the Super Bowl, knowing all eyes are on you—and the eyes of the officials too? Just really dumb. He’s really got to do something about this everybody-hates-me mentality he has. It’s worse than Steve Smith.

Maybe it's a self-fulfilling prophecy. Baldwin thinks everyone hates him and then takes actions that ensures everyone does end up hating him.

3. I think you can add Bill Belichick to the list of those who have not been interviewed by the Ted Wells/Jeff Pash committee, according to Pro Football Talk’s Mike Florio. No Belichick. No Tom Brady. But 40-plus people have been talked to. Seems Wells and Pash and the investigators want to know as much as they can about everything before talking to the two most important people in the case.

I understand that perspective, but wouldn't they learn the most by talking to the two most important people in the case? Are Wells and Pash looking for information they can nail Brady/Belichick to the wall with or trying to catch them in a lie, so they will interview them last in an effort to not gain the most information, but to gain information that shows they are lying when they eventually do interview Brady/Belichick?

 5. I think Media Day is a ridiculous clown show that embarrasses and demeans everyone who plays even a little part of it. (And yes, I do want you to get off my lawn.)

Which is why it is silly to start questioning Marshawn Lynch's character and understanding of his responsibilities because he doesn't fully participate in Media Day (it's capitalized!) to the extent the media wants him to.

7. I think a few of us in the press box noticed something of a bitter-football justice trend in the playoffs this year:

• Part 1: Detroit gets officiating injustice against Dallas, and the Lions lose a bitter wild-card game.
• Part 2: Dallas gets a great catch overturned late against Green Bay, and the Cowboys lose a bitter divisional game.
• Part 3: Green Bay gets four interceptions but blows a 12-point lead in the final four minutes against Seattle, and the Packers lose a bitter NFC title game.
• Part 4: Seattle gets a golden chance at the 1-yard line in the last minute against New England with three plays to score, but Russell Wilson throws an interception, and the Seahawks lose a bitter Super Bowl.
• Part 5: Well, there is no part five. Yet. But New England opens the 2015 season in seven months and one week. The football gods might be on the prowl that night.

This is sort of a trend, but any time an NFL team loses a close playoff game there is going to be bitterness. So the trend isn't really the bitterness, but these games were all close, which means the team that barely lost will be bitter. The bitterness is a side effect of the close game. And also, don't turn into Gregg Easterbrook with the "football gods" crap.

9. I think this is one of the easiest smackdowns of Roger Goodell there can be. Two days after he said at his state of the NFL press conference that he was available to the press almost every day, he wasn’t available on 11 hours of Super Bowl programming to NBC. That is a ridiculous statement, for Goodell to say he is available to the press “almost every day.” 

He's going to stop saying stupid shit like this when the NFL stops making a ton of money due to tremendous fan interest or the owners make him stop saying stupid shit like this. Neither one is likely to happen before next season.

Just ridiculous. I also didn’t like his condescending tone to CNN’s Rachel Nichols, who asked a reasonable question about conflict of interest, during Friday’s press conference. Goodell has to understand he has a public perception problem

Just a problem? 

—no, a crisis—

Thank God you fixed it. 

that is not going away.

The crisis doesn't need to go away. Ratings are still through the roof, as is fan interest. Roger Goodell is just a heel in the show that is the NFL. He'll continue playing the heel for the owners if it means they can take daily baths in their profits. As soon as the ratings and fan interest goes away, the crisis will start to become an actual crisis and not just the bleating of fans who don't like Goodell, but watch the NFL anyway. 

The Adieu Haiku

This just in: Hoodies,
not business suits, are the rule
this week in Boston.


The Adieu Haiku still serves no purpose. It's the appendix of MMQB. What's the purpose of this haiku about hoodies in Boston other than to write a haiku? 

Wednesday, December 4, 2013

5 comments MMQB Review: An NFL Committee Should Help NFL Teams Make More Decisions Edition

Peter King had no travel-related note last week in MMQB, but he did talk quite a bit about the Manning v. Brady matchup in Foxboro. This wasn't unexpected of course and Peter looked forward to the next matchup between these two quarterbacks (not these two teams, but these two quarterbacks) next season. This week after almost writing the Colts off last week, Peter gets back on the Colts bandwagon (again, we see his level of reaction elevated based entirely on the immediacy of what happened on the football field), is upset the officiating got in the way of a "Robert Griffin has totally redeemed himself" narrative, and is eager to tell us about what a bust Josh Freeman has been with the Vikings. 

What a day. What a weekend. And it’s not over:

What? I thought the NFL season was over with a five-way tie for Super Bowl victor between the Saints, Seahawks, Patriots, Broncos, and 49ers. They are all going to Disney Land together, as a group, but only the quarterbacks for each team.

There will be time to get to that. Lots to cover before then, including:

1. What does Meryl Streep think about Starbucks?

2. What really is Colin Kaepernick's favorite type of pizza?

3. A quick list of things that annoy Peter about the general public.

4. Brett Favre on the farm. How is it going?

1. If the season ended today, Houston would have the first pick in the 2014 NFL Draft. Question is, who will be coaching Teddy Bridgewater?

The twist: Charlie Strong is the correct answer.

2. An officiating snafu roiled the end of the Sunday night game. Just what the NFL wants: Robert Griffin III’s trying to redeem himself, and the Monday morning headlines are all about Jeff Triplette.

How dare the officials get in the way of the narrative that Peter King wants to see played out. Robert Griffin was totally going to redeem himself and Peter was totally going to write about, then Jeff Triplette has to go and make a mistake which doesn't allow Griffin to redeem himself for a (perceived) underwhelming performance this season. The narrative was being written that Griffin would redeem himself for daring to not meet the media's expectations of him, but now the media won't let Griffin off the hook because of an officiating mistake. Don't blame Peter, it's not like he can control what he writes.

5. Denver’s most recent four foes are a combined 32-16. Next four: 16-32. The Broncos have a one-game lead for AFC home-field over New England, and they don’t play a winning team the rest of the way.

Remember earlier in the season when Peter was concerned that Peyton Manning would play a road playoff game against the Patriots? Lo and behold, now the Broncos are in the solid lead for home field advantage throughout the playoffs. It's been a very over-reactionary season for Peter.

8. The Mike Tomlin discipline for his bizarre or calculated (doesn’t matter which) pas de deux on the field in Baltimore Thursday will be discussed inside 345 Park Avenue today, with a decision likely by Wednesday. I expect a heavy fine, but no suspension or loss of draft picks. 

How about the public execution of a Steelers' staff member? Because that seems about as logical as suspending Tomlin or taking away draft picks from the Steelers.

9. The Colts essentially won the AFC South Sunday. Actually, their magic number now is one—one loss by Tennessee or win by Indy clinches the division.

I hate over-using the word "literally," but it was literally last week when Peter King was writing about the Colts possibly losing the AFC South to the Titans. Peter even talked about the Colts possibly missing the playoffs. One week later...just one week later...Peter makes a note that the Colts have essentially won the AFC South now. This is yet another example of sportswriters putting too much emphasis on what happened the week before. It takes away some of the relevance and impact of MMQB when Peter overreacts to what happened during that current week's slate of games. Anyone with a brain knew the Colts had a bad habit of falling behind in a game and having to comeback, which could prevent them from winning games for the rest of the season, but they were still in good shape to win the AFC South. One week later, the Colts have essentially won the AFC South.

Now, a little bit of a different lead to the column, featuring a trip into a subject I’ve never been able to cover.

I hope it's not that discussion of the muff that Peter wanted to have with his readers last week. Just keep it NSFW, please .

Give me a few paragraphs before we get to the current events of Week 13.

Peter has written almost half of a page of this five page MMQB prior to writing this. So he has written almost 10% of MMQB already and wants a few more paragraphs before he discusses the events of Week 13. So what was the previous half-page of writing discussing? Just killing space to make the column look longer?

Last month I trailed Gene Steratore’s officiating crew—one of 17 seven-man officiating teams in the NFL—for a week, for a three-part series that will begin Wednesday at The MMQB.

But this week with the officials … this was unique. 

The officials not only provided free coffee, but provided free Starbucks coffee. What a unique experience for Peter and a welcome breath of fresh air.

We typically know very little about the lives of officials or the inner workings of the jobs they do. The linguistic shorthand they use (“UNR” for “unnecessary roughness”) and the way jobs change just before the snap of the ball (the head linesman has the slot receiver, but if the slot receiver goes in motion beyond the quarterback, the head linesman switches to the innermost receiver on his side) become dizzying to keep track of.

If only they trained thoroughly in order to perform this job and received compensation for performing this job. Then I wouldn't feel so bad for the officials.

Here's the thing. "We" typically know very little about the lives of anybody in any profession, the shorthand used in that profession or the real difficulties those in a certain profession face until "we" do that job. So I wouldn't expect officiating NFL, college, or high school games to be any different.

Just a thought while Peter talks about how little we know about the officiating profession.

I’ll give you an example that just reared its head Thursday on the controversial Mike Tomlin play. Did you know that before every game, the head linesman asks the head coach: “Who is your get-back coach today?” That, of course, made me ask Mackie on the day I spent with him, “What in the world is a get-back coach?”

Really? Peter covers the NFL for a living and doesn't know what a "get-back" coach is? He's gotta be kidding. This is clearly a joke. Peter is making a funny.

“Every team designates one man on the sidelines to keep the coaches and players back from the field,” Mackie said. 

I wish Mackie had haughtily told Peter to Google or Bing it for the answer to the question, just like Peter does to his MMQB readers when he wants them to research a question he poses.

That six-foot-wide white stripe on the sidelines, called the “No Fly Zone” by some crews, is supposed to be free of everyone during the game. But as you saw Thursday night, the enforcement of that is too lax. There were several breakdowns when Tomlin strayed too far on the stripe and actually had his right foot on the field, forcing Baltimore kick-returner Jacoby Jones to slightly alter his path. Pittsburgh’s designated get-back coach didn’t do his job. The two officials on Clete Blakeman’s crew running the sidelines following Jones, line judge Ron Marinucci and field judge David Maslow, should have flagged Tomlin for unsportsmanlike conduct (amazing they didn’t see it, or chose not to flag it) and didn’t do their jobs.

Losing a draft pick for something like this? I don't know who floated this as a possibility first, but it seems a little too draconian to me.

Now you know what the “get-back coach” is.

I'm not that smart and I already knew what this was. Peter should have known too.

So the Eagles are tied for the lead in the NFC East with Dallas this morning at 7-5—though Dallas holds the tiebreaker—and Philadelphia can thank Foles for that. Since he wrested the job from an injured Mike Vick a month ago, the Eagles are 4-0 and Foles has been close to perfect. For the season he’s a 63 percent passer, with 19 touchdowns and no interceptions. It’s December, and that’s right: no interceptions.

No interceptions. Is that right?

that’s right: no interceptions.

Thanks for clarifying that, Peter.

“Man, horrible throw, horrible decision,” Foles said from Philadelphia an hour after the game. “When I saw the flag and heard the call, I said, ‘Thank you God.’

God responded by saying, "I'm sorry, but I don't care about the outcome of a sporting event nor did I help you throw or not throw an interception. I got bigger and better things to do."

Foles is not an athletic quarterback, which everyone can see. But this game showed he has the kind of functional athleticism

Basically, Foles is a white quarterback and he doesn't trip over his feet as he runs, so he has "functional athleticism."

Foles said he appreciates how magnanimous Vick has been, both in the quarterback room and publicly; Vick has said Foles should keep the job because he’s playing so well. “One of the most dynamic quarterbacks in NFL history is also an incredible teammate,” Foles said. “He helps me every day.” He thinks he’s proven you don’t have to be a Vick to succeed in the Chip Kelly offense, and who can argue with him?

I think at this point it has been proven that you can't be Mike Vick to succeed in the Chip Kelly offense. I thought Chip Kelly's offense was a really good offense for Vick, but I also thought Charles Rogers was a great draft pick.

“I feel I’ve played well, but not as well as I can,” Foles said. “I’m 24. There’s still a lot of growth in my game. I need to improve a lot of things, especially my game management. But I think everyone tries to overanalyze the kind of quarterback that’s best for this offense.”

Apparently the best quarterback for the Eagles offense is a quarterback who doesn't throw interceptions. Who would have thought this could be true?

Foles, a clear No. 2 on Labor Day, is one of the most important players in the league as the NFL heads into the final quarter of the season.

BREAKING NEWS: The quarterback for a team trying to make the playoff is very important to that team.

What? Another officiating debacle? Washington did quite enough to lose to the Giants 24-17 at FedEx Field, and probably would have lost without striped impediments; their receiving corps ought to be nicknamed The Bad Hands People.

"Sure, this controversy I'm about to manufacture may not have made a difference in the result of the game, but let's pretend it did so I can manufacture a controversy and talk about Robert Griffin for a little bit."

Of course, this call did have an impact on the outcome of the game. 

But referee Jeff Triplette’s crew had far too big a role in the final Washington drive of the game, and far too big an influence on the outcome.

And this will obviously be the first time the officials have had an impact on the result of an NFL game.

In the first play after the two-minute warning of the fourth quarter, on 2nd-and-5 from his own 41, Robert Griffin III hit Pierre Garçon for a gain close to the first down. The head linesman, Phil McKinnely, motioned for the chains to be moved forward for a first down, and the chain gang rushed up and changed the down marker from “2″ to “1.” First down. Except Washington was in the hurry-up offense, and the ref, Triplette, standing behind the offense, held up three fingers. Third down.

On the sideline, coach Mike Shanahan said he asked an official for a measurement, and the official responded, “You don’t have to. It’s a first down.”

Now, using complete hindsight, I think it's fair to say this is the point where Shanahan should have flipped out and said the officials were contradicting each other. I honestly have no clue how he should have done this, but when two officials are obviously contradicting each other then a head coach has to help them resolve this contradiction immediately rather than see how it plays out. Maybe Shanahan was hoping John Elway would help resolve the situation for him.

Fourth down, signaled Triplette. Shanahan seemed apoplectic on the sidelines. The side judge was telling him first down on the previous play; the head linesman had already signaled first down and moved the chains up … and now Triplette was insisting it was fourth down...safety Will Hill stripped Garçon of the ball. Giants ball. Game over. Had Garçon not coughed it up, Washington would have had a first down at the Giants’ 49 with the clock running and about 1:19 to play. So this didn’t cost Washington the game, per se. But it was a massive failure of the crew.

I would say this call was on par with the missed holding call in the New England-Carolina game, especially since the Redskins would have more than one play to win the game if the officials had made the correct call. This wasn't a judgment call that was made, but two officials signaling information to each team that contradicted each other. This call didn't cost the Redskins the game, but it at least cost them a chance to try and win the game.

After the game, in a pool report with a local writer, Triplette said he felt it would have been “an unfair advantage” to Washington to stop the clock and get the down situation straight with his crew and the chain gang.

Yes, it would be an unfair advantage to make sure the officials are making the correct calls, so instead the officials handed the Redskins a disadvantage by providing conflicting information on what down it was. Makes sense. The officials want to make sure everything stays fair to both teams, by handing out contradictory information that hurts one team.

By the crew’s failure to clarify what was going on, Washington’s play-calling was bastardized by the obvious impression that it was a different down than what it was.

I'm just sad that Robert Griffin's redemption narrative can't be continued now that he lost this game due to poor officiating. Obviously whether a quarterback wins a football game or not is what decides whether he performed well in that game, not his statistics during the game. So Griffin's tale of redemption in this game is completely dependent on being a winner and not a loser, through no fault of his own.

As I reported on NBC last night, the committee finalized its plan to address minority hiring last week by compiling a double-digit list of candidates for head coaches and general managers, going beyond the usual suspects. In essence, the league will provide the kind of service teams have been buying through headhunting firms:

Oh good, I'm glad the NFL has decided to start offering a service themselves that teams usually have to pay for. I always like it when the NFL meddles in the affairs of individual teams.

If an owner calls wanting to know whom the top offensive prospects are, the league will have a list of prospects to discuss with them, and will make available the men they’d want to discuss the openings with anyway—such as former coach Tony Dungy or former GM Bill Polian,

And really, doesn't every owner want to discuss the opening with Tony Dungy anyway? He's the conscience of the NFL, no, the conscience of the world overall. I think the NFL should make it mandatory that an owner gets permission from Tony Dungy to hire a head coaching candidate before the hire can be made.

“The focus is not just the hot name,” said Robert Gulliver, the NFL’s executive vice president for human resources. “It’s identifying the new talent too. New names will emerge.”

Well yes, the names of new head coaching candidates emerge every year. New talent emerges every year. The NFL doesn't need to help make this happen.

The coaching list, for instance, will contain the top names—Stanford coach David Shaw, former Bears coach Lovie Smith [both African-American] and former Bucs and Raiders coach Jon Gruden, who is white. But Jon’s not the only Gruden on the list. Brother Jay is on it; he’s the Cincinnati offensive coordinator who has shepherded Andy Dalton through two straight playoff seasons and is on the way to a third. And minority coaches Mel Tucker (Chicago defensive coordinator] and Eric Studesville (Denver running backs coach), both of whom have been interim head coaches, got high marks from the committee too.

Here's the thing though...these names would be on the short-list that any NFL team looking for a head coach would have. The NFL doesn't need to compile this list because smart NFL teams already are looking at these candidates...except for Jon Gruden. He just wants attention and isn't worth $9 million per year compared to these other candidates. I think paying attention to him as a head coaching candidate is a waste of time.

Of course, owners don’t have to use the committee’s recommendation. Who knows if any will? Owners will do what owners want to do. The system works when owners and hirers go into the process with a truly open mind. In 2007, Pittsburgh’s Dan Rooney had a blank slate entering the process, and he ended up hiring a coach he’d never met before, Mike Tomlin. In Chicago last winter, GM Phil Emery went into his search wide open, interviewed 13 candidates and hired Marc Trestman from the CFL—a man on no one’s radar entering the process.

So while acknowledging the NFL isn't where they want to be in terms of hiring minorities as head coaches, wouldn't it be fair to say most NFL teams have a wide open search process and often a candidate who was on few team's radar could end up with the head coaching job? So if the NFL wants to increase minority hiring, that's great, but I'm not sure asking teams to use this committee will increase the number of minority hires. You know what will increase the number of minority hires? If guys like David Shaw, Kevin Sumlin, and James Franklin show interest in coaching in the NFL or if a guy like Eric Studesville blows away an NFL team with his interview. It would also help if sportswriters like Peter King stop floating guys like Jon Gruden as possible head coaching candidates. It wastes time.

Just wondering what happens when owner Zygi Wilf and GM Rick Spielman, who went out on a limb to spend $2 million to bring Freeman in, have an encounter. Does Wilf say, “Why exactly am I paying $2 million to someone who’s a healthy scratch every week?”

I know Peter is full-on "Let's help save Greg Schiano's job in Tampa Bay by continuing to bash Josh Freeman" mode, but I don't think spending $2 million to bring Freeman into Minnesota is that much of a waste. There's no long-term commitment and $2 million for one season is a small price to pay in order to determine if Freeman could be "the answer" to the Vikings quarterbacking issues. I understand Peter's agenda here though. He likes Greg Schiano and is using his status as a writer to make it look like Schiano did a great thing in running the lazy bum Josh Freeman out of Tampa Bay. I get this feeling Peter has some sort of an agenda.

Fine Fifteen

1. Seattle (10-1). The Seahawks, who haven’t played in about three years, were supposed to be all healthy and happy entering December. Now Percy Harvin’s likely out tonight. His ailing hip is acting up. As every hour passes before this game for likely NFC home-field advantage against the Saints tonight, the worry beads get rubbed a little harder in the Pacific Northwest.

I wonder if Peter has any criticism for the Seahawks to trade a first round pick (where the Seahawks could have drafted DeAndre Hopkins, Cordarrelle Patterson, Robert Woods, or Keenan Allen) in exchange for Percy Harvin, as well as criticism for giving Harvin a big, new contract coming off an injury and fully knowing he was a malcontent at times in Minnesota? Of course not, because the Seahawks are winning games, while the Vikings are not. It's interesting to me how Peter points out the Vikings are idiots for paying $2 million to Josh Freeman for one year, then moving on to discuss the Seahawks and Percy Harvin, a player who has been injured almost all year and has a big long-term contract.

I'm not saying they are the same thing, but I think the $2 million for Freeman isn't a big deal. For some reason, Peter thinks differently. I think his agenda makes him think differently.

3. Denver (10-2). After playing three Sunday night games out of five, the Broncos saw daylight Sunday afternoon in Kansas City. They liked it.

Well, the game did end when it was dark out.

With a sweep over the Chiefs, the Broncos would have to collapse in the last four games to blow a first-round playoff bye now.

Remember earlier in this season when Peter had handed the Chiefs the AFC West and was getting hyped about a Brady-Manning wild card matchup?

6. San Francisco (8-4). Niners versus Rams, 2012: St. Louis wins the series, 1-0-1, by a composite score of 40-37. Niners versus Rams 2013: San Francisco wins the series 2-0, by a composite 58-24.

In the Rams' defense, they are missing their starting quarterback and they really weren't as good last year as their record against the 49ers indicated. The really bad news is that the Rams are 5-7 with games against Seattle, Arizona, Tampa Bay, and New Orleans ahead. This means Jeff "8-8" Fisher may have a hard time going 8-8 for the sixth time in his coaching career. The good news is he has a good chance of going below .500 for the sixth time in his coaching career. That's right, out of the seventeen full seasons he has coached in the NFL, Fisher has been .500 or below .500 in eleven of those seasons. Not that he isn't a fantastic coach of course.

10. Indianapolis (8-4). Well, the last month of games in the AFC South now has no meaning, with the Colts building a four-game lead over Tennessee with four to play. (Four, because the Colts swept the Titans this season, making a three-game lead in the standings beefier thanks to the head-to-head tiebreaker.)

And here just one week ago Peter thought the Colts could lose the division to the Titans. Things change so quickly in one week...

11. Kansas City (9-3). Reeling. A trip to Washington Sunday should help.

This is the team Peter had at #1 in his "Fine Fifteen" until the week of the first Broncos game when he dropped them to #2 in his "Fine Fifteen" after the Chiefs were coming off a bye. Very interesting. It's funny what happens when a team's schedule gets more difficult.

“I’m sounding a bit like a broken record, but sometimes you gotta gut out a win, however ugly it is.”

—Andrew Luck, Indianapolis quarterback, after winning ugly over the Titans 22-14.

At least until the Colts don't win a game, at which point Peter King will point out how they have won ugly and could be in a free fall. Also, notice Andrew Luck's statistics for the season. Then compare it to Robert Griffin's statistics for the year.  One quarterback is perceived as selfish and underachieving and the other is perceived as continuing to improve as one of the best quarterbacks in the NFL, despite the fact the underachieving quarterback has more passing yards, a higher completion percentage, more rushing yards, a higher QB rating, the same number of touchdown passes, but three more interceptions. It's always interesting to me how expectations and a team's performance relate to a quarterback's performance in the eyes of the media. Griffin has at least been the comparable quarterback to Andrew Luck in many ways this year. That's not what gets written though.

I admit I’m being hasty here. But just look at the numbers before you tell me I’m nuts to suggest Calvin Johnson, 990 catches from passing Jerry Rice, might one day challenge Rice for all-time greatness.

Peter is hasty in all things that he does. Calvin Johnson is 33% of the way to Jerry Rice's reception record and now Peter thinks Johnson could catch more passes than Rice. Hey, it could happen, but yes, it is also very hasty. Of course, this has been the year of being hasty and making snap judgments for Peter. So I don't know why I would expect anything to change.

I don’t believe he will, because he’s already missing a lot of practice time (and one game this year) to injury; he has a knee condition that troubles him regularly and, at 238 pounds he’s just a larger man than Rice was. More can go wrong with a bigger receiver than with one of Rice’s build, someone more lithe and 35 pounds lighter than Johnson.

"Calvin Johnson may pass Jerry Rice or he may not pass Jerry Rice. Either way, it will or won't happen. Now let's kill some space with speculative statistics."

I'll save your eyes. The two players' statistics will look similar when Calvin Johnson is 29 years and 1 month old and Peter projects this to mean that Johnson could pass Rice's receptions record.

Mr. Starwood Preferred Member Travel Note of the Week

Didn’t travel for Thanksgiving.

Great, I was wondering if you had or not.

I did duck out just before 7 a.m. to buy a couple of newspapers in Manhattan, and I saw something I’d never seen before in my two years living on the East Side: A light changed to green on Second Avenue, and by the time it was red again (maybe 35 seconds), no cars had passed. That’s when you know it’s a holiday in the city.

Peter has never really seen a traffic jam on the East Side to where the light goes green and no cars pass the light? I would imagine this has to happen quite frequently.

Ten Things I Think I Think

1. I think this is what I liked about Week 13:

a. Justin Tucker, in 32 career games including playoffs, has made 93 percent of his field goals (63 of 68). That says two things: Tucker should be DNA tested for the clutch gene.

Which won't be found because there's no such thing.

And the NFL needs to do something to make field goals harder.

b. I believe I’ve made that point before.

Perhaps you should mention that you have made this point before in point A where you are actually making the point yet again instead of mentioning you have made the point before in point B.

c. Is there a better 1-2 running back punch in football today than Reggie Bush and Joique Bell? Absolutely unequivocally not.

Great. Glad that's decided.

d. Bush: 182 total yards against Green Bay. Bell: 128. That’s 310 yards from people not named Calvin Johnson for Detroit in one game.

And naturally, despite whether this statement is true or not, Peter bases his opinion on the results from one game.

f. Julius Peppers is a hard day’s work for any offensive lineman, and Sunday in Minnesota was no different.

Well, he's a hard day's work when he feels motivated to be a hard day's work.

j. Tim Ryan’s excellent analysis on FOX about Cam Newton being late with a first-quarter throw that turned into an interception.

Newton was 18-29 for 263 yards with 2 touchdowns and 2 interceptions, along with 68 rushing yards and this seems to be the sum total of what Peter took from the performance. Newton threw an interception because he was late in throwing the football.

k. Trent Cole. Stunning that his first-quarter strip-sack of Carson Palmer was only his fourth sack of the year (he added another one later in the game). He’s too good for that.

Apparently he's not.

o. Cam Newton definitely crossed the plane of the goal line before fumbling in the second quarter against Tampa. Definitely a TD, and good use of replay.

The call on the field was a touchdown and all scoring plays are automatically reviewed, so by "good use of replay" if Peter means "the officials followed the rules set out by the NFL to review the play" then yes, good use of replay.

2. I think this is what I didn’t like about Week 13:

e. Arizona CB Jerraud Powers, you cannot interfere in the end zone. But you know that. If you’re going to tamper, at least try to disguise it.

Cheat, but just don't get caught. That's Peter's advice.

3. I think the more I see London Fletcher, even now at 38, the more I think he’s the kind of player who will deserve honest consideration for the Pro Football Hall of Fame. I mean, how long has he been the defensive centerpiece for teams?

I wasn't aware that "was he a defensive centerpiece for his team" was a Hall of Fame criteria a player must meet.

Did you see Sunday night how he made a stop with a couple of minutes to go and forced the Giants to punt—and Washington had a chance to win at the end instead of the Giants running out the clock.

Since there is no question mark at the end of the sentence I guess that's a statement and not a question?

4. I think if you want to measure the value of a good coach, look at what Gus Bradley is doing in Jacksonville. In the last month the formerly winless Jaguars are 3-1. They’re feisty on defense, imaginative on offense and the thing you notice is even though they have nothing to play for, they play as though a playoff spot is on the line. Owner Shad Khan has to be thrilled with the hire.

I'm shocked the Jaguars were able to hire a competent coach without the NFL providing the opinion of a committee on who the Jaguars should hire as their head coach. It's amazing it was a quality hire without the NFL providing a list of good candidates for the job, as well as Shad Khan getting an opinion from Tony Dungy.

5. I think we all thought Darrelle Revis had enough time to rehab and play well this season. We all were wrong.

What's this "we" shit? Don't you love how sportswriters start writing "we" when they are wrong about something? They can't say "I" was wrong, but no "we" were wrong for reading a column where Peter King presented an opinion. The mere reading of MMQB means "we" were all wrong about Darrelle Revis and his health.

Here's what Peter wrote in an August MMQB:

I spoke with Revis, Dominik and coach Greg Schiano late in the week and, interestingly, Revis was probably the least optimistic of them all about his September readiness.

Here is what I wrote:

Yeah, that's really not good news considering Revis is the one who knows first-hand how good his knee feels. The fact Revis is less optimistic than Dominik and Schiano doesn't strike me as a good thing, especially considering we just experienced a basketball player (Derrick Rose) who missed the entire 12-13 season because he didn't think his knee felt good enough for him to play.

Don't "we" me. Peter King reported that Revis was least optimistic and I thought that didn't sound good. I'm not smart, so I know I'm not the only one who thought perhaps Revis couldn't rehab and play well this season.

9. I think if you’re wondering what Brett Favre will be doing Friday night,

I'm not, because I don't give a shit about Brett Favre. Brett Favre is an obsession with Peter King. He constantly has to bring Brett Favre up in his MMQB. It's on-par with his use of the word "precocious" as being really, really bizarre.

the offensive coordinator of the Oak Grove (Miss.) High football team will be accompanying his ballclub north to Jackson for the 6A Mississippi High School Football Championship Game against Tupelo High.

No, really Peter, no one but you cares about your obsession with Brett Favre. 

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

a. I have tried to think since the end of the Alabama-Auburn game whether I’ve ever seen a more significant, thrilling and shocking end to a sports event.

This is a thought about a football game. Therefore it is not a non-football thought.

g. I can see Carlos Hyde being a Trent Baalke draft choice. Perfect physical Niners back.

And it's not like the 49ers have any running backs on the roster or anything. Frank Gore, Kendall Hunter, LaMichael James, Marcus Lattimore...

i. Only 113,511 at the Big House. Thinking that should on my bucket list. Covered a game there; never sat in the stands.

I'm not sure if this counts as a humblebrag or not. Probably not.

l. Coffeenerdness: In the midst of a jillion Manhattan Starbucks shops, here comes Ground Central, on East 52nd. Very good espresso. Hope it can survive.

Don't be confused though. Peter is still completely planning on going to Starbucks every morning, but he hopes other people support Ground Central enough to keep it in business.

Seattle 30, New Orleans 27. For this to happen, I have to have some belief in the Seattle bench at cornerback—particularly in 2011 sixth-round pick Byron Maxwell, making his first career start, and the marginal Jeremy Lane, now in the nickel role. How’d you like to be Maxwell? Eyes of the nation on this game, national TV, first start, knowing as the corner opposite star Richard Sherman that Drew Brees has a bulls-eye on your chest for four quarters? “All our corners will be confident in this game,” safety Earl Thomas told me the other day. “The way our attitude is, just because you’re not starting doesn’t mean you’re not a starting-caliber player. Our backups are just as good as our starters—that’s our feeling.

I'm not sure this is the negotiating tactic that Richard Sherman will use when trying to get a new contract from the Seahawks, but I'm sure Sherman and Browner are very happy that Earl Thomas thinks they are easily replaceable like he claims they are.

Chaos at FedEx.
A ref’s job: control the game.
Jeff Triplette didn’t.


I still don't get the point of the adieu haiku. I'm not sure I ever will.

Thursday, June 13, 2013

8 comments The Irony of Jerry Green Saying Someone is Past Their Prime Has Overwhelmed Me

This is going to come as a shock to all of you, but Jerry Green doesn't like interleague play. I know. It took me by surprise as well that a guy who is so adverse to change or any new line of baseball-related though wouldn't like interleague play. He also doesn't like Bud Selig because Bud Selig likes interleague play. I don't like to see senior citizen-on-senior citizen violence, but that's what this has come to. Jerry wants us to know Bud Selig is past his prime (I wonder if that is a question Jerry has asked himself?) because MLB is forfeiting the dignity and integrity it once had when the sport refused to allow blacks to participate and amphetamines were popped like candies in the clubhouse. Those were the dignified days of the sport. Bud Selig is ruining everything great about baseball by not allowing the sport to be stuck in the 1970's (or even more prior to the AL's use of the designated hitter).

It all started 17 seasons ago as one of Major League Baseball's precious gimmicks. It was another talking point for baseball addicts — the Tigers vs. the Cubs or the Yankees competing against the Dodgers.

Of course, a gimmick. Preventing 50% of MLB teams from playing each other so they could meet up in the World Series isn't a gimmick of course. Allowing baseball a World Series where each team potentially could have already played each other that season, you know like every other major sport allows to happen, THAT is the gimmick? Wouldn't the gimmick be preventing these teams from playing and using this as a differentiation from other major sports? 

I know, I know, I'm speaking logic. Logic isn't allowed here. 

It was fodder for the curious — Sammy Sosa batting against Mike Mussina, or Greg Maddux trying to get Derek Jeter to ground into a 6-4-3 double play.

Sort of like how Michael Jordan would match up against Clyde Drexler or Brett Favre and John Elway would square off, no? 

Well, the curiosity of interleague baseball has faded away.

If the curiosity of interleague play has faded away then it isn't a gimmick anymore, right? Interleague play has just become a part of baseball, so MLB isn't relying on it as a gimmick anymore because interleague play has become a part of each team's schedule.

Interleague baseball is a grand experiment that went awry. It has become another failure.

This past week was Bud Selig's version of rivalry week.

The Yankees vs. the Mets, a Subway Series. The Dodgers vs. the Angels, the Freeway Series. The Cubs vs. the White Sox, Chicago's North Side vs. the South Side.

Those teams really are rivals though. Part of the fun of interleague is fostering and creating local rivalries. I admit there are some rivalries that are questionable (Atlanta and Toronto?), but it's still fun to see these games.

Home and home, four-game series! Two games in Detroit, another two in Pittsburgh.

What sort of rivalry is that?

Admittedly, I am not completely on-board for the "two games in each city" idea, but at least give Bud Selig credit for trying to make changes. The worst thing Bud Selig could do is not try to innovate and continue gaining the fans' interest in the sport of baseball. Some experiments work, others don't. MLB shouldn't be afraid to try different things.

Well, the two rivals (hah) played against each other in a World Series. Once. Back in 1909. Ty Cobb went against Honus Wagner.

The Pirates won that World Series in seven games. Babe Adams beat Wild Bill Donovan in Game 7, by an 8-0 score. Adams defeated the Tigers three times in that World Series.

Jerry Green attended and reported on three of these World Series games in fact. He was just a young pup of 35 years back then.

I'm doomed for a life of hell when I get old. I make too many jokes about the elderly, so it is going to suck when I get to be a senior citizen. I will still be making old jokes at that point, but they will somehow be less funny and take me a lot longer to type.

Actually, the Tigers got their revenge last year. They won two of three games against the Pirates in Detroit.

Does anybody remember?

The allure of interleague games has gone kaput — vanished.

The fact no one remembers these games doesn't mean the allure of interleague games has vanished. Does anyone off the top of their head remember the Tigers record against the White Sox last year? Does the fact few people remember mean the allure of interdivisional games has gone kaput? Of course not. 

The Rays vs. the Marlins; the Mariners vs. the Padres; the Blue Jays vs. the Braves!

The Mariners-Padres and Blue Jays-Braves series are a bit of a stretch. Still, I enjoyed watching the Braves play the Blue Jays because it was new. It interested me. 

In 2013, there is interleague baseball every game day throughout the season. From the Angels opening against the Reds on April Fool's Day to the final weekend of September with the Tigers playing three games against the Marlins. In Miami's new, seldom-filled Marlins Park, with its double fish tanks. By then, the Tigers should have won the AL Central in a romp. But stuff happens. That interleague series could turn significant for the Tigers.

This whole argument of "late season games will be interleague games and this could affect the playoffs so this is a bad thing" always fails for me. Do NFL writers complain the AFC West title could come down to the result of a game played between a team in the AFC and the NFC? My favorite team played all of their AFC West opponents on the later part of their schedule last year, so conceivably those games could have helped decide playoff seeding and which teams made the playoffs during these later season games. In the NBA, the last game of the season which decides what teams make the playoffs could be between an Eastern Conference and Western Conference team. NBA writers don't think this is stupid. 

Anyway, a loss by the Tigers to an National League team in late September means the same thing as a loss to a National League team in April. They both only count for one loss. Sure, getting swept by the Dodgers in September could mean more in terms of the standings (because it is the end of the season), but if the Tigers get swept by the Dodgers in April it still only counts as 3-4 losses. I don't see the issue with the Tigers having to beat the Marlins in September any more than I see an issue with the Heat having to beat the Jazz on the last game of the season to clinch the #1 overall playoff spot. 

The result is the glut of interleague games. The Tigers are playing six National League opponents this season. A total of 20 games against the Braves, Nationals, Pirates, Phillies, Mets and, finally, the Marlins. All games count for real — in the respective league standings; all statistics are preserved as genuine.

And they should be genuine statistics, just like those precious genuine interleague World Series statistics Jerry cites every January while advocating for Jack Morris to make it into the Hall of Fame. It's still baseball, so the statistics still should count. A total of 20 games out of 162 games really isn't that many interleague matchups.

Even, I presume, WAR.

I'm going to strangle myself if Jerry Green doesn't stop randomly dropping the statistic WAR in his columns. Make it end. 

If Miguel Cabrera wins another American League batting championship — and possibly another Triple Crown — he will have to claim the honors against National League pitching at season's end.

What, would this be a non-pure Triple Crown because some of Cabrera's success came against National League pitching? Is National League pitching comparable to Japanese league or AAA pitching to Jerry Green? 

Major League Baseball consists of two leagues playing games with conflicting rules. Pitchers hit; pitchers don't hit. The designated hitter in the American League; no DH in the National.

Yes, but when interleague teams play an individual game, both teams play by the same rules in that individual game. Therefore the playing field is level. 

Pitchers who don't know how to hit must bat in Pittsburgh, the Mets' Citi Field in New York, the Marlins' fishtank in Miami. And National League teams are forced to appoint designated hitter in Detroit and Baltimore and Anaheim.
All of which makes baseball a game of quirks. A sport of inconsistency in strength of schedules among competitors.

The World Series also uses conflicting rules like this. Should we not have a World Series and simply name an American League and National League champion? Let's just leave it at that. Each league plays by different rules, let's just give up having a World Series.

And the interleague games have become too commonplace — and too contrived.

The World Series is contrived in some of the same ways as interleague play, especially since the same rules for the DH governs the World Series and interleague play. 

Once baseball was all-consuming with true pennant races from the Opening Days until the final Sundays. And occasionally beyond, after deadlocked races.

Two years ago the NL and AL Wild Card races came down to the last day of the regular season. There are still pennant races and races are still deadlocked. This hasn't changed at all. 

Baseball's purity had started to dissolve. There would be playoffs to decide the World Series opponents.

Yes, Jerry Green is now complaining about the impurity of the National League and American League Championship Series. He is complaining more than one team from each league gets to be in the playoffs. This despite the fact Wild Card teams have shown themselves to be capable of winning the World Series. 

Later Bud had to cancel a World Series because of a prolonged labor impasse. The divisions were further fragmented into mini-divisions. Then Bud gave second-place teams — also known as wild cards — admission to the playoffs. Now there are two wild-card teams per league. Teams that were not good enough to win in their own divisions are eligible to qualify for the World Series.

Just like teams who have better records than division winners are left out of the playoffs entirely. I'm thinking specifically of the Anaheim Angels not making the playoffs last year with more wins than the Detroit Tigers, who made the playoffs because they won their division. Is it in some way fair for a team in a weak division to make the playoffs because they won their division, but a team in a strong division that doesn't win the division shouldn't be able to make the playoffs?

And some wild-card teams have won it — non-champions in their own small divisions becoming so-called world champions.

The idea of a team not being a champion because that team didn't win a division consisting of arbitrarily chosen teams is ridiculous. MLB chooses divisions based on geography, which is an arbitrary way of choosing the divisions. The act of calling a team that didn't win their division as not being a "champion" is absurd, especially when that team has shown they are capable of winning a playoff series against a division winning team. 

Where have you gone Babe Ruth?

He's dead and he died a long time ago. Welcome to baseball post-Jackie Robinson. You are 70 years too late.

Baseball has prospered during Bud Selig's regime. No dispute.
But the sport forfeited much of its dignity and integrity. While producing millions, maybe billions, more in revenue, it has cheapened itself as a game — as a pastime.

I'm afraid to know, but how has increasing the number of playoff spots (to an even smaller percentage of playoff spots awarded in the NBA and NHL) forfeit the dignity and integrity of baseball? 

But every night on television there are sections of unoccupied seats in Dodger Stadium and Angel Stadium, in PNC Park and Yankee Stadium and Miami's fishtank.

It could be much better.

Everything can be better, but Jerry Green is cherry-picking his data by choosing teams who aren't drawing fans well for a variety of reasons. Here are two articles, one that says the Marlins are responsible for 40% of the 2.9 decrease in MLB attendance and another that states even though attendance is down this year, attendance has increased over the last decade. So there are empty seats in baseball parks, just like there have always been empty seats.

There is a sensible solution.

If the solution is coming from Jerry Green, I'm guessing it isn't really a sensible solution. 

This is my pipe dream: Add two franchises, say in Vancouver and San Juan. That would make 32 clubs — double the teams who competed in the old-fashioned pennant races that our dwindling population senior-citizen purists loved so much as boys.

Let's review the points Jerry Green has made so far: 

1. Baseball relies on gimmicks like interleague play too much. 

2. Too many teams make the playoffs and this isn't pure. 

3. MLB's lust for money and greed has taken the dignity and integrity out of the sport. 

4. Bud Selig doesn't care what happens to the sport of baseball as long as money is being made. 

These are Jerry's complaints. His solution is to expand baseball to two other countries (which would further remove the "purity" from the game), increasing the numbers of teams in MLB, and potentially increasing the revenue stream for the owners.

Then, as this fantasy becomes brighter, divide the 32 teams into eight-team leagues — just as there were for 60 years until 1960.

Yes, Jerry Green wants to change MLB around to the same alignment used in 1900. This shocks me somehow when it really shouldn't shock me at all. 

A four-league alignment now, divide the leagues as best possible among historical lines.

Oh, they will be divided among "historical lines." Can you be more vague or not provide any examples of what you mean? Oh, you can. Great. Thanks for not providing an example of how a division divided by "historical lines" would look. 

Having divisions scheduled by historical lines sounds like a traveling nightmare to me.

Have them play only opponents in their own leagues from April through September — in four, pure pennant races.

So the cure for the current scheduling gimmick is to create a different gimmick, except a gimmick where one MLB team plays only seven other teams. This gives fans fewer options in terms of teams they can see their favorite team play and this is supposed to INCREASE attendance? MLB fans are going to be more excited about playing the same teams 25 times per year and only being able to see seven total teams all season? I have to be honest. If the Braves only played seven teams all year I would probably not watch as much baseball. There are only so many times you can play the same teams in a season. 

Then in October take the Final Four — OK, it's s basketball term — and play them in two semifinal series, best of seven.

Again, despite the fact no other major professional sport organizes their divisions, season, and postseason this way...this is NOT a gimmick. Not at all. 

Survivors advance to the World Series.

And of course the World Series will be extremely popular because the two teams that played each other will not have met all season. Fans of all ages will be lining up to get regular season game tickets and the Miami Marlins will finally start to sell out their ballpark because the fans are so excited to see them play the Tampa Bay Rays/San Juan Don Juans/Vancouver Canucks/Colorado Rockies/Arizona Diamondbacks/Seattle Mariners/Toronto Blue Jays (that would be the Marlins' division based on historical lines) for the 20th-plus time that season.

Bud didn't care much for the idea when I proposed it to him some years ago.

(Jerry Green) "So what do you think of my divisional restructuring idea?" 

(Bud Selig) "I don't care for you." 

(Jerry Green) "You don't care for the idea?"

(Bud Selig) "No, just you. You have no concept of why fans attend baseball games and how limiting the variety of games a fan could attend would affect overall attendance. I don't care for you either." 

(Jerry Green) "What about WAR? What can we do about that?" (Bud Selig walks away)

Rather, he decided to balance the leagues into 15 clubs each this season by switching the Astros from the National League to the American League. His gambit is causing at least one interleague game every day from the beginning to the end of the regular schedules.

Could this be the reason we had such a cold Spring? Does Spring dislike the lack of dignity and purity in the baseball schedule? Is this colder Spring simply a reaction to the scheduling gimmicks baseball forces upon unwilling fans? 

Major League Baseball had existed with this imbalance — 16 clubs in the NL, 14 in the AL — since 1997. The lopsided situation was created when MLB moved the Brewers to the National League. For a reason never satisfactorily outlined.

I used the Google machine and it gave me this 1997 column. It seemed the Brewers moved to the National League (and it was a nearly-unanimous vote) because the fans wanted the Brewers to be in the National League. It could not be decided who would go to the National League, so the Brewers volunteered. The rest is undignified baseball history. 

It was just a coincidence that the longtime operator of the Milwaukee Brewers had been a baseball man named Bud Selig.

Yes, it was all a masterplan to play in the same division as regional rivals in order to appeal to Milwaukee Brewers fans. You caught Bud Selig. He did what his team's fans wanted. How undignified and impure of him to move the Brewers back to the National League, which is where the Milwaukee Braves were before they moved to Atlanta.

So Jerry wants MLB to pay attention to history when choosing which teams go in which division, except when he doesn't want MLB to pay attention to history when choosing which teams go in which division.