4 comments The Long National Nightmare Has Returned

You may recall that Gregg Easterbrook was let go by ESPN, which means his TMQ had no home. I figured it would find a home, but when TMQ's new home was linked in the comments of a different post, I couldn't help but laugh. TMQ is now at "The New York Times." It's part of "The Upshot" section online at the "Times." It's interesting that Gregg has partnered with this specific newspaper because he used to run a list of hilarious (to him) retractions the "Times" had to make over the past year in his TMQ that appeared on ESPN. I've shown multiple, multiple, multiple times that Gregg contradicts himself and this move is no exception. One month he is mocking the "Times" for it's inaccuracies and the next month he's collecting a paycheck from them. Life comes at you fast. And what is even more hilarious is that in Gregg's first TMQ, there is a correction at the bottom. Yes, Gregg can no longer go in and make covert corrections to his factual inaccuracies, but they will be noted at the bottom of the page. In this TMQ it reads:

Correction: September 15, 2015
An earlier version of this article misstated that Eagles Coach Chip Kelly called running back LeSean McCoy “jingle-footed.” Kelly said in 2008 that he does not like “jingle-footed” running backs, but that was not a reference to McCoy.

Oh no, does this mean TMQ is going to have to be factually correct and Gregg can't just assert shit without any real factual backing? Of course not, but he will see what he can get away with I'm sure. One month Gregg is mocking the corrections in the "Times" and the next month he is the one having a correction to his TMQ that appears in the "Times." Life is funny sometimes, but this irony will simply be ignored by Gregg and he'll just continue to pretend his shit don't stinks as he second-guesses the decisions made by NFL coaches and players that he doesn't even understand in the first place.

Sorry I'm a week late on this TMQ, but I'm trying to catch up. This is TMQ from Week 1. I didn't even know it existed until a few days after it posted. Also, TMQ is much shorter now. It seems he was told to bloviate less. And also also, the picture that runs beside TMQ features Gregg from what looks like about 20 years ago. Couldn't they find a more modern picture? Why not just run a baby picture of Gregg beside the column?

What did Eli Manning know and when did he know it? This seems to be the question as the New York Giants — the last time you will see that name in this column —

Oh no, more cutesy nicknames for the Giants. Please stop.

face the aftermath of their botched outing at Dallas, the team’s worst epic fail since the 2010 contest in which they allowed the Eagles to score four touchdowns in the final seven minutes to overcome a seemingly bulletproof 31-10 mid-fourth-quarter advantage.

Let me guess, the Giants punted on fourth-and-one and this told the team that Tom Coughlin didn't really want to win the game?

The Giants’ faithful are rending their garments and gnashing their teeth over the team’s nutty pass attempt on third-and-goal at the Dallas one-yard line with 1 minute 43 seconds remaining and a 3-point edge on Sunday night. Had the Giants run, either they would have scored, almost certainly icing the contest, or would have kept the clock remorselessly advancing toward double-naughts.

It's not long before we get the first "almost certainly" assumption that Gregg will make in order to further his point. I've discussed this play in MMQB Review, so I won't do it again, but Gregg continuously talks about how NFL head coaches aren't aggressive enough. He thinks if NFL head coaches are more aggressive then it tells their team he is super-serious about winning the game, which motivates his team to play better. But alas, when Tom Coughlin is very aggressive and shows confidence in his team to win a game by making an aggressive play call and it fails, Gregg is all like, "Why did you do that? How stupid!"

Nothing has changed. Gregg has no beliefs and will always base his criticism on the outcome of a play and not on any certain belief that he has espoused previously. His contentions are always correct, unless they don't work in reality, in which case he pretends he never advocated for that contention and proceeds with his criticism.

But what did Eli know and when did he know it? Bill Pennington reports that Manning told tailback Rashad Jennings not to score on the snap before the fateful incompletion.

I know "what did Eli know and when did he know it?" sounds interesting and cutesy, but it's not really pertinent to this situation.

At work is what Isaac Asimov called “psychohistory.” In the 2012 Super Bowl, Eli told the Giants’ Ahmad Bradshaw not to score in a somewhat similar situation, to keep the clock moving. Bradshaw couldn’t resist, and scored anyway.

In a similar situation in the Super Bowl, Eli was right because the decision worked out for him, but in this similar case Eli was wrong, because the decision didn't work out for him. That's how it works in Gregg's world. Whatever worked was the correct decision.

Two years ago, when Peyton Manning’s Broncos were at Dallas in a somewhat similar situation, the Broncos deliberately did not score, to keep the clock moving. During family holiday dinners, the brothers may swap tales about how Peyton got this situation right and Eli got it wrong.

Then Eli and Peyton swap tales about how it's harder for Eli to hold his hand steady with the weight of two Super Bowl rings on his fingers, while Peyton only has one Super Bowl ring holding him down.

Except on Sunday night in the endgame at Dallas, a touchdown would have put the Giants ahead by 10 with less than two minutes remaining and with the Boys out of timeouts. There wasn’t any need for elaborate game theory. Just run the ball into the end zone and the Giants win.

And there is no way the Cowboys could have scored with no timeouts left, even though they did score a touchdown with no timeouts left, and then get the onside kick and tie the game with a field goal. Yes, it wasn't the best decision on the part of the Giants and Eli Manning, but the Giants chose to be aggressive. Not to mention, there is no guarantee Jennings would have scored a touchdown. It's not like he dove to the ground at the goal line and tried to prevent himself from scoring like Bradshaw did in the Super Bowl. So who knows if Jennings would have scored and the Giants tried to show faith in their offense (which always leads to victories!) and pass the ball to secure the victory. It didn't work, therefore Gregg criticizes them. If it had worked, Gregg would have written about how this aggressive play call showed faith in the offense, which led the Giants to victory.

Note the 74-word lead says the fiasco at the goal line “seems” to be the question about the Giants-Dallas contest. Maybe it’s not. Thrice in the second half, the Giants used too-conservative tactics and kicked on fourth-and-short. Just to prove it was no fluke, Jersey/A (see explanation below) also punted in Dallas territory.

So the Giants lost because they kicked on fourth-and-short, but they wouldn't have lost the game if they had just run for a touchdown and gone up 10 points? So the punting on fourth-and-short is why the Giants lost the game, unless it ends up not being the reason they lost the game. The Giants weren't aggressive enough, which cost them a victory, but then they were too aggressive, which also cost them a victory. Whatever works, that's what the Giants should have done.

Had the Giants gone for it on fourth-and-goal from the Dallas 1 with 1:37 remaining and the Cowboys out of timeouts, they either would have scored a touchdown to sign-and-seal the victory, or would have pinned the hosts on their 1. As it was, Coughlin did the “safe” thing and took the field goal, meaning a 6-point lead that Dallas could overcome with a touchdown.

Yeah, but didn't Coughlin's insistence on doing the not "safe" thing by throwing the ball on third down inspire his team to play well and let the Giants know he was serious about winning the game? Using Gregg's prior contention that coaches who go for it on fourth down inspire their team to victory, shouldn't the Giants offense have converted the third down because they knew Coughlin wasn't trying to be safe? Fortune favors the bold and it's bold to pass on third down when doing the "safe" thing and running out the clock can win the game. Gregg thinks the Giants were too "safe" on fourth down and then they weren't "safe" enough on third down. It's all very confusing.

Consistently, N.F.L. coaches make the “safe” choice and lose. Atlanta leading, 26-24, with 2:37 remaining in the “Monday Night Football” opener, the Eagles faced fourth-and-1 on the Falcons’ 26. Philadelphia’s Blur Offense had gotten hot in the second half: On their previous three possessions, the Eagles went touchdown, touchdown, touchdown. For the night, they averaged 5.9 yards gained per snap.

But again, passing on third down isn't "safe" and I don't know why Gregg doesn't address this. Well, I do. He wants to complain NFL coaches are too conservative while also criticizing an NFL coach for making a decision that wasn't safe but didn't end up working out for his team.

Instead Kelly sent out the place-kicker, who missed. “Safe” fourth-down tactics meant defeat.

But "safe" third down tactics mean victory. 

Next week, The Upshot’s 4th Down Bot returns — buzz, whir, clank — from vacation at a robot resort on the dark side of the moon. Tuesday Morning Quarterback will delve into the deep-seated psychohistorical reasons that coaches send out kickers on fourth-and-short.

Imagine how much MLB sportswriters would hate it if there was a machine that determined whether a manager's lineup was optimal or he made the correct decision during a game. Their heads would spin, followed by 100 "Baseball is played people, not robots" columns that most certainly would end up on this blog. Murray Chass and Jerry Green would be responsible for about 75 of these articles. 

Sweet Play of the Week. Thanks to “safe” tactics by the Giants, Dallas had hope when reaching the Jersey/A 11 with 13 seconds remaining.

The Cowboys set a trips (three-receiver set) left with the reliable Jason Witten as a flexed tight end. Witten “got off the line,” evading an attempted jam, then ran a simple curl to catch the winning touchdown pass. Sweet!

Yes, Witten "got off the line" which means I have no idea why "got off the line" is in italics in this situation. I don't know why I ask these types of questions anyway. 

In the Super Bowl, the Flying Elvii (see explanation below) split tall tight end Rob Gronkowski wide to the right, almost along the sideline. The Seahawks’ secondary was confused — a linebacker went over to cover Gronkowski, while no safety shaded to that side. Seeing his defense confused, why didn’t Pete Carroll call time out? Touchdown pass and emphatic spike.

This is an example of where Gregg has a total misunderstanding of how defenses work. The call by Dan Quinn may not have involved doubling Gronkowski or providing safety help over the top. Earl Thomas or Kam Chancellor can't just decide on their own that they don't give a shit what the defense call was and they are going to double whichever receiver they feel like they should be doubling on a specific play. Maybe Carroll didn't call timeout because he didn't think the defense was confused. He thought he had a linebacker on a tight end and figured that was the play call Dan Quinn made in that situation.

Gregg Easterbrook is under the impression that a defensive player can just do whatever the fuck he wants to do on a play.

(Defensive player) "Oh, Julio Jones is lined up in the slot? I'll just not play Cover-1 on this defensive play and provide help over the top to the corner."

(Another defensive player) "There's Rob Gronkowski over on the right side of the field. Sure, I'm supposed to be covering the running back out of the backfield...but I think the linebacker is going to need some help. I'll probably ignore the defensive play call and shade Gronkowski's way." 

Sweet ‘n’ Sour Play of the Week. Trailing, 31-24, with 59 seconds remaining in regulation, St. Louis had the ball on the Seattle 39. St. Louis lines up with a trips right, tight end Lance Kendricks flexed wide left, doing a Gronkowski imitation.

Generally, I'm betting that Lance Kendricks does a really crappy impression of Rob Gronkowski. You know, based on each player's production over his career. 

On the down, Seattle was in Cover 1, meaning just one safety deep — though the Seahawks knew the Rams had to reach the end zone.

The Seahawks trust their corners and the rest of the secondary to cover guys in man coverage on certain plays. So the safety often plays centerfield and when that safety is Kam Chancellor there tends to be few things that go wrong. So I don't know if Gregg thinks the Seahawks should have played Cover-2 or some other defense in this situation, but they trust their secondary enough to only have one safety deep. It's what had made the defense so good in the past that they are able to do this. 

The lone deep safety shaded toward the trips side, meaning strong safety Dion Bailey had single coverage — no help — versus Kendricks.

It's Lance fucking Kendricks. Why the hell would the Seahawks need to double him? Jesus Christ, Gregg wants a defense to double every single receiver on the field, as if the defense can trot 20 guys out there at a time. Kendricks has 132 receptions over his five year career. The only reason the Seahawks would double him is if they were trying to be ironic. Really, does Gregg not understand if Lance Kendricks gets doubled then that means other offensive players can score? Does he understand numbers and why a defense shouldn't double every single tight end that lines up on the far right or left side of the line of scrimmage? 

Yet the entire Seattle secondary looked surprised when Kendricks took off deep.

Probably because they didn't know what route he was going to run. Again, it's Lance Kendricks. He's not T.Y. Hilton or another really fast receiver who sees a safety lined up on him and immediately thinks of making a play deep. Kendricks is a tight end. It's very possible he could have run another route that didn't involve going deep. 

BOLO of the Week. All units, all units, Be on the Lookout for the Seattle defense. It disappeared in the fourth quarter of the Super Bowl and has not been seen since. All units, all units, Be on the Lookout for the Detroit Lions’ defense. Ranked second in 2014, Detroit’s defense was torched for 483 yards at San Diego, allowing a fourth-quarter third-and-19 conversion that helped the Bolts ice the contest.

I wonder if Kam Chancellor's absence had anything to do with the Seahawks defense struggling? Probably not, because that would be crazy. Also, the Lions lost much of their defensive line and one of the best defensive linemen in the game to free agency, so it's not that the defense is lost, but that the defense is struggling to replace certain players. Go ahead and send the BOLO, but there is a reasonable explanation for the struggles of the Lions and the Seahawks are still in the middle of the pack on defense without Chancellor. 

Purists may lament the situation, but to fans, roster churn matters not. Football’s Rule of 90/90 holds that 90 percent of the fans have no idea who 90 percent of the players are.

Gregg Easterbrook doesn't know who 90 percent of the players are either. I'm glad Gregg thinks he knows enough to say roster churn matters not. Ask Panthers fans when Steve Smith was released if roster churn matters. Ask Lions fans who lost Ndamukong Suh in free agency how they feel about roster churn. It's very hard to know 90% of the players in a league full of 1696 players, but I'm guessing fans care about roster churn on their own team. Of course, who I am to argue with Gregg? 

So long as a team has a couple of well-known stars, the identities of the wedge guys are irrelevant.

This shows how disconnected Gregg really is from what fans think. Any person who follows his favorite team regularly sees how other fans get excited about wedge guys and the 50th man on the roster who did something great in training camp and could he be the next great tight end for the team? If anything, fans know these wedge guys too well in training camp and put too much faith in these wedge guys to be difference makers. But whatever, Gregg. Whatever. You know more about what fans think while high up on your pedestal.

New England just won the Super Bowl. How many of its starting linemen can you name without peeking at the Web?

Four. I can name four of them. David Andrews, Tre Jackson, Sebastian Vollmer, and Nate Solder. How many can you name, Gregg? Zero? Or just the highly-paid glory boys like Julio Jones who you pretend to know something about? 

Great Moments in Football Management No. 1. On “Monday Night Football,” Julio Jones caught nine passes for 141 yards and two touchdowns — none too shabby. Netting the 2011 Cleveland-Atlanta trade and subsequent transactions, the Browns gave up Jones, one of the N.F.L.’s best players, for Johnny Manziel, one of the N.F.L.’s players.

Wait, what is this? Gregg Easterbrook says Julio Jones is one of the NFL's best players? But the Falcons didn't make the playoffs last year and that is all Jones' fault. I'll let Peter explain better than I can. From his August 2014 TMQ:

Since they took their home field for the NFC title game, the Falcons are 4-13. General manager Thomas Dimitroff gambled the club's future on the 2011 kings' ransom trade for Julio Jones, and the gamble failed. Not only did Atlanta fail to reach the Super Bowl, but Jones also has failed to justify the trade.

It's amazing how Jones has gone from being a part of a failed trade where he hasn't justified his abilities enough to one of the NFL's best players in the matter of a season. Not to mention, the Falcons had a losing record last year, but Gregg somehow fails to blame Jones for this losing record in 2015 when in 2014 the Falcons losing record proved how Jones failed to justify the picks the Falcons gave up for him. It's almost like Gregg constantly contradicts himself and talks out of his ass.

One year Jones fails to justify the trade the Falcons made to get him, the next year once the Browns have gotten rid of all the players in that trade, Jones has suddenly justified the trade and is one of the NFL's best players. This despite the fact that the Falcons didn't make the playoffs last year, so the reasoning Gregg used to bash Jones is still relevant, except now Gregg realizes how fucking stupid his assertion was and wants to pretend he never wrote anything negative about Jones.

It's not a one time thing either that Gregg bashed Jones. From 2012:

Rookie Julio Jones is playing well, but the king's ransom of draft choices Atlanta gave for him has already resulted in decline of the Falcons' power game.

Or from November 2013:  

The king's ransom in draft choices paid two years ago for Julio Jones led to talent depletion of the Atlanta roster.

You will notice in there that Gregg called Jones a "diva" for some inexplicable reason.

The Falcons might right themselves, but for now, there seems a concern that the Julio Jones trade will explode in their faces. Atlanta gave a king's ransom for Jones, not only depleting its ability to restock other positions but inserting a diva character into a locker room that previously was cohesive.

Or should I point out the TMQ dedicated to why mega-trades (like the one for Jones) don't work?  

Gregg Easterbrook is a contradicting hack and anyone who employs him should be prepared for him to mislead his audience and write things he will later contradict or try to pretend he never wrote. Facts aren't things that Gregg worries about. He passes his opinion off as fact and then tries to pretend it never happened when he contradicts his previous facts.

Great Moments in Football Management No. 2. With Robert Griffin III selling popcorn in the stands and Kirk Cousins looking befuddled on the field, consider: Netting transactions, in the last five years the Washington franchise has invested three No. 1 draft choices, two No. 2s and a No. 4 on quarterbacks, and is in panic mode at quarterback.

Yes, the Redskins traded many of these picks to the Rams for Robert Griffin III, but I don't know if I consider that investing the pick into a quarterback. And also, Gregg has taken great pains to criticize the Rams for this trade as well. It's not like the Rams did much with the picks anyway. I actually don't think the Redskins are in panic mode at quarterback. I think Gruden likes Cousins and McCoy pretty well. 

Maybe It’s Just as Well George Halas Did Not Live to See This. Trailing Green Bay by a touchdown in the fourth quarter, the Bears, playing before a raucous home crowd, reached second-and-goal on the Packers’ 2. On the day, the team rushed for 189 yards. So did Chicago punch the ball in on three tries from the 2? Incompletion, incompletion, incompletion, and I wrote “game over” in my notebook.

There was 7:42 left in the game at that point. I'm glad Gregg felt the need to write "Game Over" in his notebook, though I wonder how many times he erases "Game Over" after he's written it, because the Bears in fact did score another touchdown in the game, so it wasn't totally over after this failed fourth down conversion. 

McCoy, now running for the Bills, has walked his comments back so many times it’s no longer clear exactly what his point is, other than that he dislikes Kelly. Kelly has said he does not like tailbacks who are “jingle-footed,” whatever that means.

Chip Kelly has said this repeatedly. He has said he likes running backs who make one cut and hit the hole, then run downhill. A "jingle-footed" running back is a running back who doesn't hit the hole and then run downhill. It's really not complicated at all to figure out what Kelly means. I like how this is the comment that required a correction to TMQ. Previously, Gregg would have just changed this sentence from referring to LeSean McCoy to referring to all running backs and pretended it never happened, all while criticizing others for making mistakes in their column. Because the "New York Times" publishes corrections, Gregg can't pretend his shit don't stink while pointing out the mistakes of others. I like it. 

Super Bowl Flashback. Reaching the New England 1 in the closing seconds of the Super Bowl, all Seattle had to do was hand the ball to Marshawn Lynch and a second Lombardi Trophy was likely.

Yes, it was "likely" because that's the conclusion Gregg wants to reach in order to prove his conclusion. Sure, maybe Lynch would have scored, but is that "likely" Lynch would have scored? Who knows? It's dangerous to just make assumptions like this, but as long as it proves the point Gregg wants to prove he doesn't care.

The folly of Seattle’s final offensive call prevented the sports world from noticing something else: The Seahawks committed pass interference on the play.

Hang with Gregg on this. He says the final offensive call prevented the sports world from noticing the pass interference on the play. So the way Gregg is working this contention is that he noticed pass interference that the rest of the sports world didn't notice. Others were unaware of the pass interference...well, until Gregg decides that's not true. No one noticed, except he needs people to notice the pass interference in the very next sentence. 

Had Seattle scored on the play, millions today would believe that an officiating blunder awarded the wrong team the Lombardi Trophy. Millions would think the 2014 N.F.L. season built up to a conclusion as badly botched by zebras as the ending of the 2012 Fail Mary game,

Millions would believe that an officiating blunder awarded the wrong team the Lombardi Trophy, because they saw the pass interference on the play that Gregg just claimed the sports world didn't see. I guess Gregg is assuming everyone is too stupid to catch those things that he catches, like there was offensive pass interference on the play, because we saw the ball get intercepted. So yes, the millions would wonder about the officiating blunder that Gregg claims the sports world didn't notice. 

Human nature says we pay more attention to what happens than to what doesn’t happen. What did not happen was that the 2014 N.F.L. season — which began with the extreme unpleasantness of the Ray Rice videotape, then proceeded to another Patriots cheating accusation — did not end with Seattle receiving a tainted win because offensive pass interference was not called.

The pass interference no one noticed would taint everything. And also, I'm not sure that would have been pass interference. The Patriots run plays like that themselves and aren't often called for pass interference. Gregg has now created a whole new controversy that doesn't exist and may have never existed. I wonder how many times he'll mention this controversy that never was over this upcoming football season, in between writing a TMQ on concussions, blur offenses and how offenses are far ahead of defenses early in the season? 

Scandal Nickname Note. Aren’t you weary of “____”-Gate? Yours truly contends the ball-inflation hullabaloo should be called PSIcheated.

I'm weary of your nicknames for NFL teams. Hopefully the "Times" will keep TMQ at an abbreviated length and possibly I can look forward to a correction every week in TMQ. God knows if the editors are doing their job, the list Gregg used to make of "Times" corrections will look small compared the list of corrections made on a weekly basis to TMQ.

0 comments What A-Rod Has Done Wrong Today: He Didn't Take PED's to Help the Yankees Like Andy Pettitte Did

As part of the ongoing commitment from the media to be as obsessed with A-Rod as possible, which not ironically means I sound obsessed with A-Rod by writing about their obsession with A-Rod, I have put together all of the things the sports media sees that A-Rod has done wrong. Today, Johnette Howard says that Andy Pettitte and Alex Rodriguez are not the same. Pettitte took PED's to help the Yankees, while A-Rod took PED's to soothe his own ego and antagonize others. Apparently "intent" is now a part of the PED judgment that the media will make. Simply taking PED's isn't a huge issue as long as the player's intent was good. A player took PED's to make enough money to help support his child dying from a rare disease? It's perfectly acceptable to cheat and profit from it. Taking PED's just to enhance your performance in a selfish manner? Well, you are an asshole, liar, and cheater. I might need a chart to help differentiate what reasons are and are not acceptable to take PED's. Of course, some in the media are trying to be easier on A-Rod now that he is playing well. Success cures all.

The debate this week that the Yankees and everybody else should treat Andy Pettitte no differently than Alex Rodriguez because both players were admitted performance-enhancing drug users is so absurd it makes my head hurt.

It's absurd because they both took PED's and there shouldn't even be a discussion based on that. One guy is nice and the other is an asshole. That's mostly how I feel that the media views the difference in Pettitte and A-Rod, no matter how often they protest otherwise.

There is no disconnect at work here. Saying Pettitte and Rodriguez are the same is a false equivalency.

A false equivalency is defined as, "a situation where there is a logical and apparent equivalence, but when in fact there is none." It's based on measuring different information the exact same way and oversimplification of this information. Pettitte was busted one time for PED use and is seen as good guy. A-Rod was busted twice for PED use and is an asshole. The difference in these two situations are that one player got busted once more than the other player and is seen as an asshole. I'm not sure that means the end result, that both players cheated and should be treated the same way, is a false equivalency or not. Nelson Cruz got busted one time for PED's and he's a pretty nice guy from all appearances. So should he be treated in the same manner that Andy Pettitte is treated, like a nice guy who just a made a mistake? If so, someone alert the media they are treating Cruz as a PED user when they shouldn't be.

Pettitte isn't just getting a Nice Guy discount because the Yankees announced a few days ago that they're retiring his number and giving him a plaque in Monument Park, two honors that A-Rod will never experience in New York.

A-Rod's habitual PED recidivism, lying and character assassination attempts against his accusers make Pettitte's PED use look like a fender bender.

Pettitte isn't getting a Nice Guy discount, it's just A-Rod is so much more of an asshole compared to Pettitte that he should be treated more harshly than Pettitte is treated. Got it. There's no Nice Guy discount because it's called something else. It's not like Pettitte had conflicting testimony when brought up on the stand to accuse his friend Roger Clemens of HGH use. If A-Rod would only misremember some things then maybe he wouldn't assassinate so many people's character.

Pettitte's actions aren't totally excusable, but again, they hardly rise to the level of what A-Rod finally admitted to, or how he's continued to exacerbate his problems with clumsy grabs for the forgiveness Pettitte has enjoyed because of how he behaved before and after he was exposed.

But remember, Pettitte is not getting a Nice Guy discount. Not at all. His actions regarding the use of PED's gets some forgiveness from the media because Pettitte acted kindly before and after he was exposed. Again, it's not a Nice Guy discount if you just call it something else.

A-Rod's latest stunt, the handwritten apology letter he released Tuesday, instantly led to photos of mock letters being posted on Twitter with handwritten lines like, "Sorry! I got caught!"

An apology is only as sincere as the audience wants it to be. People want to believe Pettitte, so they do believe he is sincere.

Yankees management is giving Pettitte a pass for his PED use, which Pettitte has always insisted was a one-time mistake. He's said he did it only to rehab an injury so he could hurry back to help the team, and you can choose to accept that or not.

And intent apparently matters now. Pettitte was trying to enhance his performance to help the team, while A-Rod enhanced his performance to help himself hit home runs, none of which counted as helping the Yankees team in any way. This is a kind of funny argument since intent really shouldn't matter and either way the player helps the team by helping himself. The only difference is how the media wants to shade the apology and the reason given in the apology.

But let's be completely frank and grown-up here.

Oh, it's super-serious time. I'll put my Serious Face on when talking about the Nice Guy discount that doesn't exist by the name "Nice Guy discount."

The decision to not disqualify Pettitte because of his PED use isn't really an enormous shift for the team.

The Yankees profited greatly from employing a large cast of other PED users during the steroid era such as Roger Clemens, Gary Sheffield, Jason Giambi, Chuck Knoblauch, and Mike Stanton. The Mitchell report and BALCO trials revealed that.

Regardless of whether it is an enormous shift in how the team works or not, none of these players are represented in Monument Park like Andy Pettitte will be. No matter how hard Johnette Howard tries to differentiate Pettitte from A-Rod or claim that Pettitte isn't being treated differently despite being a PED user, the facts simply don't represent Pettitte as being as different as she claims him to be.

The Yankees profited from PED users, but Pettitte is the only one in Monument Park. Pettitte used PED's "to help the team," but his intent shouldn't matter, because A-Rod's PED use helped the team as well. It's just he doesn't hide behind the "it's for others, not me, because I felt a huge obligation to help my teammates out" excuse. The sports media wouldn't buy it anyway when this excuse came from A-Rod.

The Yankees' ethical squishiness on PED use is nothing new. Nor was it unique in baseball during the steroid era. Or since.

Oh, so now everyone was doing it, so it's not such a big deal if Pettitte took part as well. I guess everyone quit using PED's around the time A-Rod started using them. That's just like A-Rod, he's so detached from reality that he doesn't know it isn't cool to use PED's anymore.

The Yanks signed Giambi -- McGwire's and Jose Canseco's former training pal with the Oakland A's -- to a $120 million contract seven months before Caminiti's tell-all.

Is Jason Giambi in Monument Park? He isn't? So how is Pettitte not being treated differently from other PED users again? He was a Yankee for a longer span of time than Clemens and is closely tied to the organization, but Johnette Howard is trying to draw a firm line as to why Pettitte isn't being treated differently as a PED user for any other reason than he's a nice guy. She's only going to prove the point that he is treated a little differently, because every other PED user she has mentioned is being treated differently by the media and the Yankees than Pettitte has been treated.

Yet when asked directly at Giambi's mea culpa news conference if possible steroid use by Giambi was ever part of discussions about whether to sign him to such an enormous deal, Yankees general manager Brian Cashman said no, no, the issue "wasn't in the winds" back then.

So really, it is the fault of the Yankees organization that Pettitte used PED's. They created an atmosphere where taking PED's was acceptable, so naturally a nice guy like Pet  a person who treats other with such respect and reverence like Pettitte would find it acceptable to take PED's. It was for the team, you know. Pettitte would NEVER take PED's to help himself like other PED users did. Other PED users like A-Rod wanted to enhance their performance for selfish reasons, while Pettitte wanted to enhance his performance, but so he can come back from injury quicker and help the team he loves so dearly (tear falls down his face).

A-Rod, who played with Caminiti in Texas in 2001, one of several Rangers teams that might've had one of the greatest collections of juicers of all time (Juan Gonzalez, Rafael Palmeiro, Ivan Rodriguez, et al.), was already with the Yanks for one season when Caminiti's SI story came out. But that didn't stop the Yanks from buying the storyline that A-Rod was the exception, The Last Natural, when they first traded for him, or when they re-signed him to the $275 million deal they're now stuck with.

This is some revisionist history right here. There was nothing tying A-Rod to PED's prior to his being traded to the Yankees. That Caminiti story from "SI" came out in 2002 according to the "Sports Illustrated" site. A-Rod joined the Yankees in 2004, so he was not with the team when that story came out. Good effort, good job. Who cares about facts when there is an opinion needs to be proven correct?

But remember this, too, about that Nice Guy premium Pettitte is getting vs. A-Rod: Contrary to the bitterness Knoblauch expressed on Twitter on Monday about Pettitte's kid-glove treatment by the Yanks, the Yankees actually have treated Pettitte poorly in the past.

Oh, so the Yankees ARE giving Pettitte a Nice Guy discount now? Previously in this column they weren't doing this, but now they are. But it's okay for him to get the Nice Guy discount because the Yankees were mean to Pettitte one time, so that means...umm...well, actually I'm not sure what the hell it has to do with the present discussion about how Pettitte isn't like A-Rod for reasons that supposedly have nothing to do with Pettitte being a nice guy.

It hasn't been all rainbows and syrupy sentimentalism.

But two facts remain that Pettitte is being given a plaque in Monument Park and he did use PED's. So the fact his relationship with the Yankees hasn't been all rainbows and syrupy sentimentalism has nothing to do with the difference in how he and A-Rod are treated.

In 2003, the team let Pettitte walk off to Houston years before his PED use ever surfaced. 
 
Johnette Howard moves those goal posts again. She doesn't seem to know when the Caminiti story came out in "Sports Illustrated" and then describes the Yankees as having let Pettitte go to Houston "years" before his PED use ever surfaced. Let's pretend for a second that there is an even playing field. Pettitte went to Houston in 2003 which was "years" from his being found out for using PED's in December 2007. A-Rod started playing for the Yankees in 2004 and his PED use came to light originally in July 2007, but proof of his PED use wasn't public until February 2009.

So Howard thinks four years is "years" before Pettitte's PED use surfaced, while being kind and saying Jose Canseco's suggestion A-Rod used PED's served as proof at the time, it was three years before A-Rod's PED use surfaced. In reality, it was five years. So Howard thinks the Yankees should have known about A-Rod's PED use three years before it became public when trading for him, despite the fact he had never used PED's while a member of the Yankees until that point, but gives the Yankees credit for getting rid of Pettitte because it was "years" before his PED surfaced. Of course Howard doesn't expect the Yankees should have known Pettitte used PED's while a member of the Yankees team. Naturally. The Yankees should have been on to a guy who didn't even play for them as a PED user, but how would they ever know one of their current players had used PED's? Three years prior to information becoming public means that information should have been known in the case of A-Rod, while four years is "years" in the case of Pettitte. She just keeps moving the goal posts all around the field.

Pettitte had just won 21 games and already had a clutch reputation. Yet the Yankees asked him to take a pay cut -- a pay cut! -- from $11.5 million to $10 million a year. George Steinbrenner was still around and vital then, and The Boss personally negotiated deals with career-long bad boys like David Wells and Sheffield. Yet Pettitte didn't hear from the Yanks for six weeks after their initial offer.

Johnette Howard can try to muddy the water all she wants. The bottom line is that Pettitte has a plaque in Monument Park and he used PED's. He's being treated differently from A-Rod and most of it has to do with his reputation versus A-Rod's reputation. She can deny this all she wants, but the only differences in A-Rod and Pettitte are their reputations, their supposed intent for taking PED's, and A-Rod has been busted twice not once. They both used PED's. She can mealy-mouth around it all she wants, but Pettitte has a better reputation as a nice guy and that helps him tremendously.

Even their final offer asked him to accept $5.1 million less in guaranteed money to stay with them rather than go home to play for Houston -- a risk he wasn't willing to take.

In short, the Yanks gave Pettitte the same unsentimental treatment that Giambi and A-Rod got when the team explored voiding the millions left on their ill-gotten contracts, and that Joe Torre got with the one-year contract extension offer that left him so "insulted" he left to manage the Dodgers.

Only a person with an agenda could really write with a straight face that offering a new contract to a pitcher that involves taking $5.1 million less in guaranteed money than another team is offering is the same thing as a team trying to void $61 million of another player's contract. These are two completely different things. The Yankees were offering Pettitte a contract with $5.1 million less money, while they were trying to take $61 million away from A-Rod. Ignoring they offered a contract to one player and was voiding a contract from another, I think the difference of $55.9 million in the money (attempting to be) voided from A-Rod's contract shows the difference in these two situations. Again, Johnette Howard is trying so hard to differentiate and it's not working.

Even Jeter was publicly told to "smoke the reality pipe" by an unnamed Yankees official during his last contract talks.

People forget.

Keep moving those goal posts. The issue isn't whether the Yankees have ever been mean to Andy Pettitte. The issue is whether A-Rod and Andy Pettitte, both PED users, are being treated the same way by the Yankees organization. The answer is they are not. What has been said in contract negotiations is irrelevant. What is relevant is that Pettitte and A-Rod admitted to using PED's and Pettitte is getting a plaque while A-Rod is fighting to avoid his contract from getting voided.

All of it is also influenced by the fact that Pettitte and A-Rod are dramatically different men and they handled being caught as PED users in significantly different ways.

Remember that Howard insists Pettitte isn't getting a Nice Guy discount when she discusses how each man handled being caught as PED users.

Pettitte held a news conference to make a blanket apology, and sat there till every last question was asked. Then he made the rounds for weeks behind the scenes, personally repeating his apology to one person after another after another. His behavior was impeccable before and since, even when Clemens called him a liar. He didn't cook up some phony lawsuit against the Yanks' team doctor, as A-Rod did, or lie again and again on national TV, smear the reporter who unearthed his PED use, sell out a cousin who is now suing him, or backslide into PED use, as far as anyone knows.

So Pettitte is getting a Nice Guy discount. He apologized correctly and to everyone involved. I get it. His behavior was impeccable and he took responsibility for what he did, except for the fact he's never really taking responsibility for why he took HGH. He's hidden behind the whole "I was trying to help the team and took HGH to recover from injury" reasoning, as if this is more noble than simply taking PED's to improve one's performance. Good for him, I bear no ill will that he uses this reasoning. Pettitte has only come as clean as he's needed to come clean and as much as the media has made him come clean. Pettitte claimed after the Mitchell Report came out that he took PED's for a couple of days in 2002. Then when he was in front of Congress and they provided examples of his additional PED use, he admitted while under oath that he used them again in 2004. So he didn't lie, unless you want to count withholding information as lying. He didn't cook up a phony lawsuit, despite the fact he consistently has hidden behind a phony story that plays on the media's need to show him as a good guy. He did use PED's to help the team and come back from injury, while A-Rod used PED's to improve his performance. Six of one, half dozen of the other.

People sometimes do make grievous mistakes in life. Pettitte's story, until proved otherwise, is he cheated, then asked for forgiveness, and earned it with his actions. Meanwhile, A-Rod keeps setting himself up to be seen as an incorrigible fraud.

I understand one of the differences is that A-Rod has been busted twice for PED use. Of course, Pettitte admits to using PED's twice himself, but really only got busted once. Maybe A-Rod hasn't earned forgiveness, but the media and MLB didn't come at Andy Pettitte as hard as they have come after A-Rod. So Howard takes offense to the idea A-Rod and Pettitte should be treated the same, but not because Pettitte is seen as a nice guy, but because of Pettitte's nice guy actions. No wonder she likes Pettitte so much, she's his target audience for the "I used HGH to help the team, not myself" excuse. She wants to believe Pettitte was pure of heart in his actions.

And now, all of that has determined how each man is treated?
Good.
It should.

But the bottom line is that they are both PED users, while Pettitte is being forgiven because he's a nice guy who apologized the right way. He's getting a plaque in Monument Park even though he admitted to using PED's. There is no other reason other than him being a nice guy and the media wanting to believe him that he is treated as he is treated compared to other PED users. I have to wonder if A-Rod had written his letter of apology after the first time he was busted for using PED's if he would be treated the same as Pettitte. I think I know the answer.

8 comments MMQB Review: J.J. Watt For MVP, Except Peter Doesn't Have the Guts To Vote For Him Edition

Peter King discussed the Super Bowl preview game played at Lambeau Field between the Patriots and Packers in last week's MMQB. He also revealed the source, who gave Peter most of the information that he based his Ray Rice reporting around, did indeed mislead him and was simply furthering their own agenda in giving Peter false information. There was a very liberal use of "we" in MMQB, as usual, concerning how "we" counted out the Chargers after their blowout loss to the Dolphins a few weeks ago. This week Peter wonders if J.J. Watt can be MVP (he upped his workout schedule and that's why he's playing so well...I'll classify that under "reasons explaining a player's superior performance that would be called into question if it were about a baseball player"), begins his eventual assault on Jadeveon Clowney's performance, and has no traveling note this week.

This year a defensive player is gaining some traction for the MVP, and for good reason: J.J. Watt, most of us would agree, is the best player by the widest margin at his position in the NFL.

Okay, this is true. It does make me wonder about how one small thing though. I'm not denying Watt's fantastic year and super-humble nature that gets constantly rammed down the throats of readers, but is the fact Watt the best player by the widest margin a reflection on how well he is playing or a reflection on how there aren't other defensive ends quite on his level this season? What I mean is this...Aaron Rodgers is probably the best quarterback right now, but would he be a better MVP candidate if there were no other quarterbacks performing at close to a high level like he is? I'm not taking anything away from Watt, but if Justin Houston had defensed a few more passes, had an interception, and caught the fancy of sportswriters by catching a few touchdown passes would Watt be an MVP candidate like he is? I'm asking, I really am. Would Watt have less of a case because he's not the best player at his position by such a wide margin?

Does that make Watt the MVP? I’ll investigate.

Peter will really investigate, not "Did Ray Rice hit his fiance and I'll talk to one source then write my entire column on the subject matter based on this one source's reporting" investigate.

But first, let’s sum up where we are as we head into the last 49 games of the regular season:

It all adds up to the craziest season in NFL history since the 2013 NFL season. 

If the Patriots win home-field in the AFC (three remaining foes’ combined record: 16-23), their quarterback and revived defense will make them very hard to beat in Foxboro. Or anywhere, for that matter.

Remember when the Patriot Way wasn't working anymore?  

The best team in the NFC South is 4-8-1. Carolina could actually win the fourth seed in the NFC playoffs.

They had one quality game against an opponent they were extremely motivated to play. Jerricho Cotchery still starts at wide receiver and the offensive line still sucks. Don't overreact to one game.

Can you imagine Seattle at Carolina on wild-card weekend?

Yeah, I have attended two of those games over the past couple of years. It set NFL offenses back forty years.

Frustrating first 56 minutes for Indianapolis on Sunday. Exhilarating final four minutes. “If anything’s frustrating,” said Andrew Luck, “it’s my bonehead mistakes.” Luck handed Cleveland 17 points, but had the stuff to drive 90 yards for the winning touchdown in the final minutes. What else is new? The Colts are winning the AFC South again.

I'm going to resist the urge to hate on the AFC South here.

“Whoever you pick I’m sure will be deserving,” Watt told me from Houston. “The way I look at it is, I’ll worry about what happens on the field. And I’ll let all of you worry about the MVP.”

I can imagine Peter hopping over to Watt like a school girl and teasing Watt about possibly getting Peter's vote for MVP. I'm sure Peter thought he was being quite precocious.

“If all positions were created equal, J.J. Watt’s the best player in football by a mile, and it isn’t close,” said Neil Hornsby, the founder of Pro Football Focus, which judges every player on every snap.

Aaron Schatz, the president of the long-running football analytics group Football Outsiders, agreed: “Watt is by far the best player as his position compared to the average of his position.”

As I was stating earlier, it is relative to his position. I don't think it goes to diminish Watt's performance that he is outpacing every other player at his position, but I don't necessarily see this as the key link to his MVP candidacy. If another player at Watt's position were closer to his performance, does that mean that Watt has less of an MVP candidacy? If so, then his candidacy is based on the performance of others at his position and not his individual performance. Imagine if other MVP's were judged this way. Imagine if Peyton Manning weren't considered a legitimate MVP candidate because he set multiple passing records, but Aaron Rodgers came close to setting passing records himself.

There’s also the dedication that, even in this era of players dedicated to greatness, seems put on. Except the scars would show after a while, and they haven’t shown on Watt yet. In training camp I asked him about how he continued to strive to be better. Watt said: “I heard a quote that says, ‘Success isn’t owned. It’s leased. And rent is due every day.’ Every single day, someone’s coming for your job. Someone’s coming for your greatness. If you’re the greatest, someone wants to be the greatest, and so if you’re not constantly improving your game, somebody else is.

You want the guy to be a legit MVP candidate, don’t you?

Not really, Bill Simmons. I still don't truly care about awards like MVP until some sportswriter writes something stupid about them.

Then in the caption under a picture of Watt to the right it states that he upped his workout regiment in the offseason and it is paying off on the field. I love to imagine these things written about a baseball player and see how that goes over.

So then the question becomes whether we can logically judge whether a defensive lineman can be as valuable to his team as a quarterback can be. In an ideal world, football would have a stat similar to “WAR” in baseball—Wins Above Replacement.

Oh sure, NOW everyone wants WAR to help solve a problem in comparing two different players. If football had a WAR-type of statistic then it would only be used by some sportswriters, while other writers would spend 25% of their time pointing out how stupid the statistic is and making fun of those who use it.

So then it comes down to the judgment of 50 people: Can a defensive end possibly mean as much to his team as, say, an Aaron Rodgers, who can put a touchdown on the board every time he possesses the ball? Probably not.

If that's decided then a defensive end can never be the MVP. It just can't happen if a defensive end can never mean as much to his team as a quarterback. That doesn't feel right though, does it?

Then there’s the matter of Houston being a middle-of-the-pack team. The Texans are 7-6. They are seventh in the league in scoring defense, 27^th in the league in yards allowed (a wide disparity). This doesn’t help Watt. MVPs most often come from the offensive side of the field, and from playoff teams.

It's the "MVP" award, not the "MVP for a player whose team will make the playoffs" award. Besides, it doesn't matter if a defensive end can't mean as much to his team (meaning, he can't be as valuable) as a quarterback.

Then there’s the matter of Houston being a middle-of-the-pack team. The Texans are 7-6. They are seventh in the league in scoring defense, 27^th in the league in yards allowed (a wide disparity). This doesn’t help Watt. MVPs most often come from the offensive side of the field, and from playoff teams.

Yeah, but J.J. Watt works hard and everyday is a grind (insert continual J.J. Watt-like cliches that sportswriters eat up like it's a free buffet)...and that's why I try to stay humble and prove myself everyday.

“Doesn’t the MVP always have to be a quarterback simply by virtue of how the game is played [today]?” asked Schatz. Possibly, but Adrian Peterson, in his 2,096-yard season two years ago, lifted the Vikings into the playoffs with mediocrity all over the roster, and he edged Peyton Manning that year.

I don't think the MVP always has to be a quarterback. Maybe I'm being too open-minded, but while I understand that quarterbacks usually have the greatest effect on a team's record, Adrian Peterson had a fantastic year when Christian Ponder was his quarterback. If he didn't get the MVP, then he deserved a medal of some kind.

The APasks for one winner. (I’m on record as wishing we voted as in baseball, 1 through 10, so we could see how close the vote really is. If you have to pick one, even in a very close vote, it often doesn’t mirror the closeness of the contest.) Three weeks from the end of the season, here is my standing of the top five:

1. Aaron Rodgers
2. J.J. Watt
3. Tom Brady
4. DeMarco Murray
5. Peyton Manning

Here's my confusion about Peter's vote. In the case of J.J. Watt an MVP voter has to consider two separate issue. Whether a defensive player either can't or can win the MVP award and whether player for a losing team either can or can't be considered for the MVP award. If Peter's answer to these two statements is that a defensive player on a losing team CAN win the MVP then what would Watt have to do in order to get Peter's vote? That's what I wonder. It seems like throwing Watt #2 is a cop-out to say, "Yeah, he had a great year and I think he should be considered for the MVP, but I'm not giving him the MVP award because I secretly won't give it to a defensive player on a losing team. I want to make it seem like I will though."

Who knows who wins the craziest show on turf, redux? Atlanta would have it wrapped up but for terrible clock management at the end of a one-point loss to Detroit and a two-point loss to Cleveland. If those two games had been coached properly down the stretch, the Falcons would be on a five-game winning streak headed in Lambeau Field tonight, and would have the division clinched by now.

And if a frog had wings then it wouldn't bump it's ass on the ground.

Let’s assume Atlanta loses in Green Bay tonight. The three NFC South teams would be separated by a half game … and, amazingly, any of the three teams could win the division by winning the final three games on its schedule. Each team, too, could think it’s the best team, based on one recent result: Atlanta over Arizona 29-16 last week; New Orleans over Pittsburgh 35-32 last week; and Carolina over New Orleans 41-10 this week. My pick to win the division? Carolina, with the impressive 1-6 record since week six.

The Panthers haven't won a game since Week 6 and have been blown out a couple of times during that stretch, and yet Peter still thinks they are the best team in the NFC South based on their one good performance against the Saints. Not that Peter makes knee-jerk reactions or anything like that of course.

“For a lot of the season,” Cam Newton said from New Orleans Sunday afternoon, “a lot of our guys, because we’re so young, have had kind of a deer-in-the-headlights look.

Newton is talking about his offensive line, who have spent most of the season only pretending they care to block the guy in front of them in a desperate attempt to have their starting quarterback murdered.

But for so many of these guys it’s just time and experience. That’s what they need. Time. We’ve had time together. We’ve grown together.’’

It's amazing how everything is great and they've "grown together" after a win against a divisional opponent that the Panthers have no difficulty getting pumped up to face. Next week I have a feeling the growth will stop and the patchwork offensive line will go back to it's regularly scheduled sucktitude.

Dan Quinn is setting himself up to be a strong head-coaching candidate...I said to Quinn that a lot of times a team’s postseason success can work against an aspiring head coach, because some (most) owners get impatient and won’t wait until after the Super Bowl to hire their coach. I told him for his sake I hope the length of the season didn’t roadblock him from a head-coaching shot. “I hope it does,” he blurted. That’s the kind of attitude, I’d think, that a prospective owner would like.

Dan Quinn is the J.J. Watt of NFL defensive coordinators. Dan Quinn is the real MVP.

T-minus three weeks, and Tampa Bay now leads the Marcus Mariota derby. Oakland’s win over San Francisco takes the Raiders out of the first slot in the 2015 draft. That leaves five teams at 2-11, vying for the top pick and the right to take Mariota (presumably—considering all the off-field problems swirling around Jameis Winston).

It's amazing to me that Peter already knows who the #1 overall pick in the draft will be.

1. Tampa Bay. The Bucs would sit and take Mariota, or raffle it for a ransom to a quarterback-needy team.

So if the Buccaneers raffle the #1 overall pick to a quarterback-needy team, does that mean they will ransom the pick to themselves?

2. Tennessee. The Titans would be in line for Mariota too.

But what about Jake Locker's accuracy? It can be improved!

5. Oakland. Euphoria over beating San Francisco—except in the guts of the scouts, who will say the right thing, but really: The first pick in the draft is worth far, far more than a morale-boosting win in December.

Yeah well, don't tell any NBA sportswriters that because they are too busy having a shit-fit at the idea of teams tanking in order to get a better draft pick. That's even in the NBA, where the worst team doesn't necessarily even get the #1 overall pick, as opposed to the NFL where there is no lottery system used to auction off the #1 overall pick.

Last point here: For Tennessee, it’s New Jersey, New Jersey, with the Jets following the Giants to Nashville this week. (Not New York, New York, because the two teams play and practice and do business in New Jersey.) Why on earth would Ken Whisenhunt, who, presumably, is going to be the coach in 2015, pull out all the stops to try to win this game? Take your medicine, lose, and get the highest pick you can so you can be in the best position possible to take the best quarterback or best player—or trade the pick for a few good ones.

So NFL writers want to use a statistic like WAR and encourage NFL teams to tank? It's a different world from the outrage seen from sportswriters in the NBA and MLB on these two sets of issues.

Washington has finished in last place in the NFC East in five of the last six years, and is on track to do it a seventh time in eight years. The team has had eight coaches this decade; that’s exactly how many coaches the other three teams in the division have had, combined, in this century. Yet the Washington Post reported over the weekend that Jay Gruden, handed a five-year guaranteed contract 11 months ago, would be “one and done,” or fired after one season,

Thanks for explaining exactly what that means, Peter. I was confused as to what that term meant because I am one of your readers who aren't nearly as smart as you are. I'm glad you are here to help educate the ignorant like you do.

And a new frontier for MMQB this morning. I have video takes on three things—Sean Payton running out of answers in New Orleans, the Jim Harbaugh era teetering to an end in San Francisco, and the dubious helmet-to-helmet call on Brandon Browner in San Diego last night—up on Page 1 of this column today. I’d love to hear, and read, your reactions to the video piece, either with an email (talkback@themmqb.com) or Twitter (@SI_PeterKing).

It's good that Peter is trying different things, but I don't like videos nor do I like podcasts. It's a personal preference. I prefer to read my information as opposed to having to sit through a 10 minute conversation or 45 minute podcast. Hearing people talk is never preferable to me just reading information.

We’ll try it for the last four regular-season weeks. If you like it and consume it, we’ll keep doing it. If not, we won’t. Your call.

If it's our call then can the "Adieu Haiku" go away? Also, the "Chip Kelly Wisdom of the Week," "Tweets of the Week," "Quotes of the Week," and any updates on coffee can also go away...assuming it really is up to me and Peter's other readers.

Looking at the history of the six coaches who have been traded in the past 20 years, it seems foolish for the 49ers to think of getting only a third-round pick for Jim Harbaugh, if they trade him after the season. That’s the compensation Pro Football Talk reported the Browns and Niners were discussing after last season.

That is a ridiculously small bit of compensation for a coach who has turned around a once-proud but moribund franchise and helped turn it into one of the winningest teams in football.

Look at Bill Belichick’s résumé before Patriots owner Bob Kraft traded a first-round pick for him in 2000. He was 37-45 in five seasons as Browns coach, with a distinguished career as a coordinator. And he got Bob Kraft of the Patriots to give up a 2000 first-round pick for him.

Perhaps this is a reason that the trade of Harbaugh to the Browns was never actually completed? The 49ers realized they were undervaluing Harbaugh.

If I were Niners owner Jed York, I’d read Parcells: A Football Life, by Bill Parcells and writer Nunyo Demasio.

Oh, quit pimping out the book about your boy Parcells.

In it, Demasio describes Parcells playing hardball with Patriots owner Robert Kraft over the Belichick compensation. Kraft first offered third- and fourth-round picks for Belichick. In the next phone conversation, it rose to second- and third-round picks. In one last conversation, Kraft agreed to surrender the Patriots’ first-round pick, with some low-round picks being exchanged as a sweetener.

I don’t see why Jim Harbaugh in 2015 isn’t worth to some team at least what Bill Belichick was worth to the Patriots in 2000. At least.

While I do agree, there are a couple of factors I don't believe Peter is considering when discussing the compensation received for Harbaugh versus that received for Belichick. There is a perception about Harbaugh that he is (a) difficult to deal with or (b) might get a bug up his ass and head back to coach a college football team. This perception wasn't there for Belichick. He didn't rub the front office the wrong way or have his name appear every time Michigan or another college program was looking for a new head coach. I think this affects the compensation the 49ers could receive for Harbaugh.

What owner and GM would want to take on a head coach who has shown he conflicts with his GM over personnel issues and seems to still have interest in coaching college football? Sure, Harbaugh is a great NFL coach, but he had conflicts with a really good GM in San Francisco, so what happens if he works for a team with a lesser GM? Is Harbaugh going to want equal power over personnel issues with that GM? If Harbaugh gets angry over the direction of the franchise will he just go coach college football again? I think these are legitimate questions an owner and GM has to ask. Harbaugh is a great coach, but is worth a first round pick, the new contract, and power that he will want within the organization?

Very few. Because his rookie season never really got off the ground. This is what you need to know about Clowney’s freshman year in the NFL, after being picked first overall and having his season wrecked by hernia, concussion and knee issues:

Compensation in bonuses and salary: $14,938,000. Games played: 4.
 
Plays: 143.
Tackles: 7.
Sacks: 0.
Quarterback hits (via Pro Football Focus): 0.

I feel like Jadeveon Clowney is about to get Josh Freeman'd if he gets injured again next season. Meanwhile, Matt Schaub is being paid $8 million to sit the Raiders' bench and Peter doesn't seem to give a shit. Josh Freeman got $2 million and Clowney was injured all year, but Peter chooses to focus on those two players as wastes of money for some reason. I'm not trying to create a strawman, but Clowney isn't the first rookie to be injured during his first season in the NFL. Luke Joeckel was drafted #2 overall in 2013 and he played in five games last season.

Clowney’s next payday will be in late July, when the Texans will pay him a roster bonus of $922,409.

I'm not sure where Peter is getting the compensation of $14,938 for Clowney. Spotrac has him at $4,049,636 for the 2014 season. I'm showing the entire bonus for Clowney over the four years of his contract is closer to the compensation in bonuses and salary that Peter shows for Clowney during just the 2014 season. It sounds like I either have bad information or Peter needs to get his information correct. Either way, Clowney is now on Peter's radar as a useless piece of trash who needs to earn his contract.

The Fine Fifteen

3. Seattle (9-4). Troy Aikman on FOX, as the 24-14 dismantling of the Eagles in Philadelphia wound down: “The Seattle defense, they’re completely overwhelming. They’ve given up one play—that touchdown to [Zach] Ertz.” In the past three wins over Arizona, San Francisco and Philadelphia—by a combined 62-20—the Seahawks have allowed 204, 164 and 139 yards. 139 yards against a Chip Kelly offense! In Kelly’s house!

I think the 2014 NFL season will be the year where sportswriters count out certain teams early in the season (Seattle, New England) only to feel silly once those teams become competitive again. 

4. Denver (10-3). That was a tough win, 24-17 over Buffalo. When Peyton Manning goes touchdownless, with two interceptions, you know you’ve played a tough defense. But you also know the offense isn’t clicking the way it should. The Broncos really need Julius Thomas (ankle) back.

(Insert here snarky comment about Peyton Manning not being able to function as well without Pro Bowlers at every receiver position)

8. Arizona (10-3). It wasn’t always pretty, but Drew Stanton (15 of 30, 239 yards, one TD, no picks) did the most important thing of all: He didn’t cough the ball up. No turnovers. And now the Cards can take a giant step toward the most incredible division title by any team this year Thursday night at St. Louis.

No. The most important thing of all is that the Cardinals' defense held the Chiefs to 14 points in this game. Stanton not turning the ball over is obviously important too, but the most important thing is the Cardinals' defense played well. That's how they can win playoff games, because I will stick to this view, relying on Drew Stanton or the running game won't win games in the playoffs.

12. Pittsburgh (8-5). After a great day in Cincinnati, and another huge play by Martavis Bryant, I am left with this: You figure out the Steelers. They confuse me.

Peter historically seems very confused about teams that are inconsistent. He can deal with a team that is precocious, but a team that doesn't play at the same level every week really vexes Peter. The Steelers can be an inconsistent team. There's not much else that needs explaining.

13. Cincinnati (8-4-1). Speaking of that, you figure out the Bengals. They confound me.

See above and insert the word "Bengals" in for "Steelers."

15. St. Louis (6-7). The Rams are 3-1 in their last four, including three dominant defensive games: 22-7 over Denver, 52-0 over Oakland and 24-0 over Washington. First back-to-back shutouts by the Rams since 1945. That is pretty good.

Yep, it's almost like there is talent on defensive side of the ball. The Rams are two wins and a loss closer to Jeff "8-8" Fisher fulfilling his destiny for one more season. 

Defensive Players of the Week
 
J.J. Watt, defensive end, Houston.

Don’t you think I get tired of this Watt-as-Player-of-the-Week rigmarole every week? 

No, I think you quite enjoy the Watt-as-Player-of-the-Week rigmarole every single week. You have control over who you name as Defensive Player of the Week, and even if you didn't, then you still talk about Watt enough to where it's obvious you don't dislike discussing his greatness.

Comic relief happened after Sunday’s 27-13 win over the Jags in Jacksonville, with three more sacks for Watt. A reporter asked him a question and included the fact that Watt had two sacks, and … “How many?” Watt said. “Those suckers are hard to get. Don’t short me, brother.”

I should have peed before reading that moment of comic relief, because I just pissed my pants based on the hilarity of J.J. Watt's comeback to the reporter. Not that Watt is focused on personal statistics or anything of course. What a comedian.

(I had to add that last part for a little additional snark)

Coach of the Week

Gregg Williams, defensive coordinator, St. Louis. The Rams are the first team this season to shut out two straight foes (and the first Rams team to do it since World War II), and they’ve now held the Raiders and Washington to a combined 450 yards. Those are not two good offensive teams, but it’s the way St. Louis is winning right now—the rush is stifling, and the secondary has been playing clinging coverage. You wondered how long it would take the Rams to assume the personality of the go-for-broke Williams, and it looks like they’re there now.

Oh, I did wonder how long it would take for the Rams' defense to assume the personality of Gregg Williams? I wasn't sure if I wondered this or not, but it appears I did.

Special Teams Players of the Week

Tavon Austin, wide receiver/returner/Jet Sweeper, St. Louis. The Rams won’t say they’re disappointed with Austin since making him their first pick of the 2013 draft, but entering Sunday’s game the electric player from West Virginia had but six touchdowns in 24 career games. Not good enough for a guy who cost St. Louis four picks to move up in the draft. But he showed in Washington how valuable he can be. His 78-yard punt return capped the scoring in a 24-0 shutout, and he added seven touches for 60 yards.

One of those picks the Rams gave up to the Bills is a second round pick they used to get Kiko Alonso. Otherwise, the Bills didn't do much with the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 7th round picks they received in return for giving up a 1st and 3rd round pick.

“If I have to motivate pro football players to play a pro football game, then we need to get new pro football players.”

—Washington coach Jay Gruden, after the 24-0 loss to St. Louis.

I'm still afraid that Daniel Snyder thought he was hiring Jon Gruden when he hired Jay Gruden to be the Redskins' head coach.

“You know who votes for that. They don’t seem to see eye-to-eye with me, which is cool. And if I’m not, I’ll still live.”

—Marshawn Lynch, in an interview with former Seattle teammate Michael Robinson for NFL Network, on his chances to someday make the Pro Football Hall of Fame.

Ah, the old media-has-a-problem-with-me-and-it’ll-be-a-factor-in-barring-me-from-Canton line of thinking, from the 39^th-leading rusher of all time. Interesting.

Ah, the old sarcasm-from-a-Pro-Football-Hall-of-Fame-voter line of thinking where he mentions that Marshawn Lynch is the 39th-leading rusher of all time as if Lynch's career is done today. It's interesting because Peter is already hinting that Lynch doesn't deserve to be in the Hall of Fame when Lynch is only 28 years old. But I'm sure the Pro Football Hall of Fame voters won't pay attention to which players they enjoyed speaking with when it comes time for voting. Of course not.

“The shame of it is, I’m not sure they care about Michael Brown or anything else. This was a reason to protest and to go out and loot. Is this the way to celebrate the memory of Michael Brown? Is this an excuse to be lawless? Somebody has to tell me that. I don’t understand it. I understand what the Rams’ take on this was. I’m embarrassed for the players more than anything. They want to take a political stand on this? Well, there are a lot of other things that have happened in our society that people have not stood up and disagreed about. I wasn’t in Ferguson. I don’t know exactly what happened. But I know one thing: If we dismantle and limit the power of our policemen any more than we have already, then we’re going to have a lot of problems in this country. What do you do if someone pulls a gun on you or is robbing a store and you stop them? I don’t want to hear about this hands-up crap. That’s not what happened. I don’t know exactly what did happen, but I know that’s not what happened. This policeman’s life is ruined. Why? Because we have to break somebody down. Because we have to even out the game. I don’t know. I don’t get it. Maybe I’m just old fashioned.”

—Mike Ditka, to the Chicago Sun-Times, on the five Rams players who showed their support for the Ferguson protesters by coming out for the game eight days ago with their hands raised.

This is a great quote. Mostly because I can't wait until I get to the age where no matter what I have said before or how little/much sense it made, I will just end my statement with "Maybe I'm old fashioned" and then close the book on the discussion. This quote doesn't make a hell of a lot of sense to me, but I just want to be at the point where I say random things that lack clarity and end it with "Maybe I'm old fashioned." This is my God-given right as an American citizen.

At Washington on Sunday, St. Louis coach Jeff Fisher sent out as captains for the game Janoris Jenkins, Michael Brockers, Zac Stacy, Alex Ogletree, Stedman Bailey and Greg Robinson.

Coincidence that all six players came as draft picks in the trade for Robert Griffin III, who was standing on the opposite sideline? I think not.

And yes, that is an awesome move by Jeff Fisher. I'll even leave the "8-8" off his name for this great attempt at trolling. 

If Aaron Rodgers and the Packers beat Atlanta tonight at Lambeau Field, Rodgers and Brett Favre would have identical records (68-32) in their first 100 NFL regular-season starts.

And Rodgers has about 50 less interceptions in that time span as well. Favre had 116 interceptions in his first 109 games started in the NFL, while Rodgers had 55 prior to starting his 100th game.

Chip Kelly Wisdom of the Week
The Eagles’ coach, on the rumors that go with a formerly successful college coach being successful in the NFL but always linked to college jobs at this time of year—but to a lesser degree about being happy wherever you are, in whatever job you have:      

“Our whole mantra around here is, ‘Be where your feet are,’ and my feet are right here and that’s all we ever talk about. I can’t control what other people think or other people write. I’ve never been concerned with it; never will be concerned with it. I’ve been happy—I’ve been very, very fortunate in my career. Everywhere I’ve been in my career has been a great situation. I had an unbelievable opportunity when I was at New Hampshire and I loved it there and could have stayed there for the rest of my life. And then same thing at Oregon. I loved Oregon; I loved those players … I loved that group; I loved that coaching staff. I loved being in Oregon; I loved everything about it, but I had an opportunity to come here. I’ve been very happy everywhere I’ve been and I’m happy with being here now.”

This is more rambling than it is wisdom. If Peter really read/listened to what Chip Kelly was saying he would know that Kelly is essentially stating that he is always happy where he is until he gets a better coaching opportunity. So basically, Kelly loved New Hampshire and loved Oregon, but he got better opportunities. So he's always going to be happy where he is until he finds a better opportunity. So this quote essentially means nothing and applies to nearly every head coach. Nick Saban is always happy where he is until he finds a better job. The same goes for every other head coach.

Winston has the field presence and body type of Andrew Luck. 

Don't do Andrew Luck like that. Jameis Winston is not Andrew Luck. Winston can be a great NFL quarterback, but he isn't Andrew Luck at Stanford. 

What’s going to be very interesting in the next few months is to see how NFL teams process the numbers. They favor Mariota, particularly the stark interception number. In three full seasons, Mariota has thrown 12 interceptions.

I'm not a scout, but it seems running ability, decision-making, and intangibles favor Mariota. While the measurables and throwing arm favor Winston, though Mariota does have 101 touchdown passes in his career. I know what my pick would be if I HAD to make one.

Ten Things I Think I Think

1. I think this is what I liked about Week 14:

a. Eli Manning starting his 175th consecutive game (including playoffs). Only nine full seasons to go until he passes Brett Favre (321). Should be easy. Manning would be 42. In his prime.

Manning is only 152 interceptions behind Favre as well. He would have to average 17 interceptions per season until he is 42 years old to pass Favre. That seems more reasonable, though I like that Tom Brady and Peyton Manning COMBINED only have 35 more career interceptions (371) than Favre had (332).

b. Cam Newton’s well-placed touchdown throw to Kelvin Benjamin to put the Saints behind the 8-ball early in New Orleans. Newton has taken too much of the blame for the bare-cupboard offense he was given.

Get out of here with your logic and reason. It's a coincidence that the one game where his offensive line protected him the Panthers offense scored 41 points.

d. Manti Te’o, with a near-interception and then a real interception in the last six minutes of the first half Sunday night.

It was a real interception by Te'o! Peter isn't making this up or anything like that. It was real.

i. Ryan Tannehill, knowing when to run.

But he does know when to hold them, know when to fold them or know when to walk away? Does Tannehill count his touchdowns while he's still on the field? He should know there's time for celebrating after the play is over.

j. Joique Bell, knowing how to run at the goal line.

Pro Tip: Use your legs to run towards the end zone and push as hard as you can if you happen to encounter a defender.

v. Reggie Bush, for having the courage of his convictions to wear the “I CAN’T BREATHE” T-shirt at Ford Field Sunday.
Interesting choice coming from a guy who admits to severely punishing his one year old child for misbehaving. Apparently there wasn't a "I'm standing up for a good social issue, but also lack a bit of self-awareness" T-shirt.

2. I think this is what I didn’t like about Week 14:

d. Vikes corner Captain Munnerlyn’s mugging of Jets wideout Jeremy Kerley, the easiest interference call.

Yeah, but he'll make a great play or interception and totally make you forget about this mistake. Captain giveth, Captain taketh away.

e. Man, Brian Hoyer doesn’t get much help from his receivers.
f. Man, Brian Hoyer overthrew a wide-open Taylor Gabriel by seven yards. That negated an easy touchdown.

While "e" is true, it probably doesn't help to prove Peter's point that he placed "f" directly below it. Hoyer doesn't get help from his receivers, but it sounds the lack of help could go both ways here.

j. Anyone still anointing Jimmy Graham?

Charmin may be anointing him their new spokesman. The difference in physicality in Graham and Rob Gronkowski is very interesting. I don't know if Graham was having a bad day, but he heard footsteps at least twice on Sunday and it resulted in a dropped pass both times.

p. My Lord, this is not something from this week, but how about this Thursday night game 10 days from now: Tennessee at Jacksonville.

At least it may be a competitive football game, which is more than other Thursday night matchups could say.

3. I think almost every year there’s a stunner in January—a coach we never thought would be parting ways with his team for whatever reason. That coach this season could be Sean Payton. Things just don’t seem right in New Orleans right now.

The Saints would be stupid to fire Sean Payton. Every team is allowed a bad year...or at least should be allowed a bad year. I can't live in a world where Sean Payton is fired while having two losing seasons out of 8 years as a head coach.

6. I think the headline of the week belongs to stlouisrams.com: “Punters Get Paid Like People Too,” after they rewarded versatile punter Johnny Hekker with a six-year, $18 million contract extension. I love this contract for St. Louis. Hekker is certainly worth 2 percent of the Rams’ cap space, especially because of how valuable he’s been in the fakery aspect of the punt team since arriving in St. Louis.

Hekker is 17th in punting average, 5th in net punting average, 2nd in punts inside the 20-yard line, and 5th in return average. So he's a pretty good punter, but of course a lot of those punting statistics are dependent on his punt coverage team. For example, Carolina's punt coverage team is horrendous and it shows in the statistics for Brad Nortman.

Then Peter transcribes Fran Tarkenton's comments about Robert Griffin. Never has there been a retired quarterback who may be more right, but also should probably shut up more than Tarkenton. He's probably right in some ways about Griffin, but I don't know why the media keeps going to him for juicy quotes. I think I just answered my own question.

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

a. So, a quick baseball story here: Russell Wilson’s attorney, Mark Rodgers, is also the agent for relief pitcher Andrew Miller. In early October, when chatter about the off-season free-agent market was taking shape, Rodgers mentioned to me, knowing I liked baseball, that he thought Miller could get four years for more than $8 million per. “I think we can get him $9 [million] a year,” Rodgers said two months ago. On Friday, the Yankees signed Miller to a four-year, $36-million deal. Talk about knowing your market. That’s amazing.

I don't know if this is amazing. Rodgers said he thought he could get Miller $9 million per year and so that was obviously the price he was asking teams who wanted to sign Miller to meet. A team met that price, so Miller is now a member of said team (Yankees). It's Rodgers' job to know the market and the fact he nailed exactly what he thought for Miller goes to show that knows the market. Amazing? No. Doing his job? Yes.

c. As for shortstop Didi Gregorius, who batted .226 with a .290 on-base for Arizona in 299 plate appearances and was benched and later farmed out at age 24 last season: I don’t know many great players, or even borderline all-star ones, who were on their third team by age 24 (Cincinnati, Arizona, Yanks). I don’t see any annual all-stars playing at short for Cincinnati, or looming at short for Arizona.

Well, Peter is a renowned baseball expert so I can't help but think he's 100% right about this. Especially since they don't play defense in the American League, so there is no sense in factoring defense in as part of the evaluation of Gregorious. Why would defense count as part of Gregorius' skill set? That's crazy talk.

j. There are about 10 movies I want to see, but Unbroken, The Imitation Game and Foxcatcher—those are the three I vow to see by the end of the holidays.

Okay, thanks for the information on what movies you plan on seeing. I will be sure to not hold you to this.

o. Not saying Saturday night’s Heisman award ceremony is anticlimactic or anything, but anyone who has his team in the race for the national title, with a 38-to-2 touchdown-to-interception ratio, would seem to a pretty hands-down pick.

I can barely tell you who won the Heisman Trophy a few years ago. From what I remember, there haven't been too many exciting races for the Heisman Trophy where there couldn't be a reasonable guess made Saturday morning about who would win the award that evening.

r. My college football final four: 1, Alabama; 2, Oregon; 3, Florida State; 4, Ohio State.

So......pretty much the same final four teams as the committee picked? Thanks for your contribution and be sure to update us on all the movies you see over the holidays.

t. Five big conferences, four playoff spots. That’s where the problems in the four-team playoff begin. And as my peer Pete Thamel wrote for SI.com Saturday night: “In the giddy excitement that came with getting rid of the two-team BCS in favor of the four-team playoff, many overlooked a potential fatal flaw. The vague criteria essentially allows the selection committee to make up the rules as it goes along.” Which is why Baylor and TCU were screaming Sunday afternoon after the naming of the field. But whatever the criteria, let’s face it: A four-team playoff was always going to make three or four teams that didn’t make it go crazy.

There will always be controversy. The NCAA Tournament has 68 teams that make it into the field and there is STILL whining that some teams get left out. There could be a 64 team playoff and the 65th and 66th team would still feel upset they weren't included.

As I said higher in the column, if the Packers beat the woebegone playoff contenders tonight, Aaron Rodgers will have an identical record after 100 starts (68-32) as Brett Favre. What’s notable in the comparison between the two quarterbacks is the edge Rodgers has statistically. These numbers include only games each quarterback started, not the mop-up stuff each did before beginning their starting careers:

Player	Starts	W-L	Comp.	Att.	Pct.	Yards	TD-Int	TD-Int diff.	Rating
Rodgers	99	67-32	2,176	3,276	.660	27,193	219-54	+165	107.1
Favre	100	68-32	2,094	3,400	.616	24,079	194-104	+90	89.2

The rules that favor the quarterback had an impact on Rodgers' statistics being more impressive than Favre's, but Rodgers is still the better quarterback 100 starts into his career. Can't tell Peter that though.

However, in Most Valuable Player awards won by the time of their 100^th starts:

Favre: 3 
Rodgers: 1

I'm not going to comment on this because my head might explode.

Favre was a great player early, and Rodgers has been a great player early, one generation apart. There’s good reason if you’re a Favre fan to say Favre was better,

Other than the "It's a different time now than it was when Favre made his first 100 starts" reasoning, I don't see how a person could claim Favre was the better quarterback 100 starts into his career. Rodgers has a better completion percentage, more yards, better TD:INT ratio and a better rating.

and a good reason today to say Rodgers is better.

The good reason being because he is better 100 starts into his career. It's not a knock against Favre, but just a reality shown in the statistics. There is always the "Different time" argument of course.

The Adieu Haiku
Watt for MVP? Can’t see it. Today, I take …
12. Mister Cheesehead.

Again, can there be a vote on whether the "Adieu Haiku" stays or not? Why is there a vote on whether the video of Peter discussing NFL-related issues on the THE MMQB site stays or not, but we can't vote on the use of haikus in a football column?