There are very few redeeming qualities that Skip Bayless has. He's a troll, but he's also good for amusement. He's such a joke, that it is amusing. So that's his one redeeming quality. He's fun to laugh at and makes me feel better about myself. Skip Bayless has written another column that is essentially about Skip Bayless. Sure, it's about Andrew Luck, but it's about how Skip Bayless doesn't hate Andrew Luck. I'm pretty sure Skip Bayless farts into a glass and then smells it.
Not long ago I had the unexpected pleasure of meeting Mike Wells in ESPN's cafeteria. I read every word Mike writes about the Indianapolis Colts for ESPN.com. And right away I thought, "He's as good a guy as he is a reporter."
That's a great story, Skip. I bet Mike Wells' version of the story goes this way:
"Not long ago, I saw Skip Bayless in ESPN's cafeteria. I tried to avoid him by running over to the salad bar, but he saw me and then approached me. He was nice to say he likes my writing, but then began to ask me why I have never written about Andrew Luck not being the quarterback Tim Tebow could have been. He got distracted halfway through the conversation by seeing his reflection in a mirror, then said I should consider writing about how overrated Andrew Luck is because he isn't in the Hall of Fame, yet 'everyone' says he's already a first-ballot Hall of Famer. I asked him why he hated Andrew Luck and then Skip turned bright blue yelling about LeBron James. I pretended I was choking and got taken away by ambulance just to get away from him."
But then he turned his investigative skills on me. "I have to ask you
something I get asked so often by Colts fans," he said. "Why do you hate
Andrew Luck?"
And Skip immediately thought, "That's a great column idea! It could be about ME not liking Andrew Luck. I was wondering when the next column idea about myself would come to me."
I'm sure it sometimes seems that way to Colts fans who watch "First Take." Allow me to explain.
I DO NOT HATE ANDREW LUCK.
Oh, well allow me to explain then. I DO NOT CARE ABOUT YOU. GO AWAY.
It's true I love the previous Colts quarterback, guy named Peyton, far more than I do Luck so far.
And of course, based on the fact he is supposed to be an objective observer, Skip should base his criticisms and praise on which players he likes the most and least. Obviously.
And it's true I like (or liked) Robert Griffin III slightly more than I do Luck.
Jump off that RG3 bandwagon as quickly as possible, Skip! Hurry!
But that's as a quarterback, not as a guy.
Again, "as a guy" shouldn't matter when discussing RG3's performance on the field. Well, it shouldn't matter to an objective observer who doesn't enjoy creating narratives, strawman arguments, leaps in logic, and poor conclusions of an athlete's skill based on how much this observer personally likes the athlete. Once the objective observer starts basing conclusions on feeling and opportunities to troll, they turn into what Skip Bayless is. It's a sad state to be in.
From all I read and hear, Andrew Luck just might be the finest young man
ever to be a star NFL quarterback. Not an ounce of RG-Me in him. No Johnny Manziel "money" signs or bad signs after hours. None of Colin Kaepernick's chip-on-shoulder-pads.
But he does have a disgusting beard. That's not the sign of a fine young man.
No Twitter or Instagram blunders -- Luck doesn't even have an account.
And of course having a flip phone, no Twitter or Instagram blunders means that Andrew Luck is a good person. He doesn't publicize his blunders or choose to show his life in a very public manner, so that makes him a fine young man.
No relentless national-TV ads for Nationwide-is-on-your-side or Papa John's or Buick, like that former Colts quarterback.
So let's be clear about the logic Skip Bayless is using. Skip likes Peyton Manning more than he likes Andrew Luck due to on the field reasons. The reason Skip thinks Luck is a fine young man compared to other quarterbacks is because he doesn't do commercials like these other quarterbacks (including Peyton Manning), who apparently aren't fine people, are seen doing. So Skip bases his opinion of Andrew Luck on his on-the-field abilities, except for RG3, who doesn't perform as well as Luck on or off the field, but Skip still likes him better. Skip likes Peyton Manning best of all because he performs well on the field, except when Skip decides Manning doesn't perform well on the field. So Skip thinks Manning doesn't have the legacy he should because he hasn't won only a single Super Bowl, and isn't a fine man because he does commercials. Meanwhile, Skip wants to wait for Andrew Luck to win a Super Bowl (presumably so he can criticize Luck for not winning more Super Bowls), but thinks he's a fine young man because he doesn't do national commercials. I'm just confused as to how Skip judges these NFL quarterbacks. One minute he cares about what Manning does on the field, while also stating Manning needs to do more, the next minute he is stating he won't give Luck credit until he achieves what Peyton Manning has achieved.
Obviously nothing to hate there.
And yet, Skip by his own admission likes RG3 more, even though Griffin isn't on Luck's level on or off the field. Go figure.
But what I do not like -- and cannot fathom -- is the premature
enshrinement of Andrew Luck. Seriously, it's as if he already has been
inducted into Canton's Hall of Fame.
Skip Bayless is taking a page from the Jemele Hill school of sportswriting where he attempts to disprove something that few people believe. No one is prematurely enshrining Andrew Luck into the Hall of Fame. Luck's eventual ascent to one of the NFL's best quarterbacks is simply being acknowledged, that's all. Of course, if Skip didn't overstate his opposition's opinion then HE would seem like the one who is exaggerating. He can't have that. So Skip paints the opinion of others that Luck is becoming an elite quarterback as an exaggerated stance of putting Luck into the Hall of Fame already in order to cover up for his own exaggerated position on Luck.
Again and again I hear analysts refer to him as a cinch first-ballot Hall of Famer.
Where the fuck are you reading this stuff? Are the voices in your head saying these things, Skip?
A Google machine search shows this isn't being discussed. In fact, THIS ARTICLE came up as one of the first hits on the search. Sounds like Skip is making up his opponents' argument.
He's "already a top five quarterback" and some experts make the reverential case he just might already be the NFL's best QB.
There are a lot of arguments being made. There is also a huge leap from "cinch first-ballot Hall of Famer" to "already a top five quarterback." It's an epic leap that must be taken to get there.
Call him Andrew Lock, as in Hall of Fame Lock. Fans everywhere -- not
just Indy fans -- have been conditioned to believe Luck is well on his
way to becoming The Greatest Ever.
Very few people are writing or saying this. This argument exists only in the head of Skip Bayless, which is probably one of the most frightening places in the world to exist. Again, Skip is making the opposition to his position seem to have their own extreme opinion when this isn't true.
That's all they hear on TV.
This is a lie.
No doubt the young man, in his third NFL season, is almost as good on
the field as he is off it. But -- and it's quite possible I dreamed this
-- didn't Andrew Luck throw SEVEN INTERCEPTIONS in two playoff games
last January?
Yes, he did throw seven interceptions in two playoff games in January. He threw six touchdowns as well, but he threw seven interceptions in two games. That's two fewer interceptions than completions Tim Tebow threw the last time he appeared in a playoff game.
Did anyone but me notice this?
No Skip, you are the ONLY ONE who noticed this.
Most fans, if their QB threw seven picks in two playoff games, would be
more inclined to believe that QB belonged in Canton, China, instead of
Canton, Ohio.
Yeah, maybe. But again, very few people are making the argument that Andrew Luck should be a first-ballot Hall of Famer. This seems to be an argument that Skip Bayless is making up.
It's now out of bounds, even un-American, to exercise the slightest
objectivity when it comes to Andrew Lock, who just might be the most
media-protected third-year QB in NFL history.
That's a rather specific criteria there Skip.
Notice the rather Bayless-ian argument Skip is making here. He's saying he doesn't dislike Andrew Luck, he just doesn't like the argument by others (which doesn't exist) that Luck is a first-ballot Hall of Famer already. This makes him not like Andrew Luck...yet. So Skip's opinion of Andrew Luck is entirely formed based on his perception of others' opinion of Andrew Luck.
"I don't like 'NCIS: Los Angeles' because my mom thinks it's one of the best shows on television right now."
See how insane that argument sounds? That's Skip's argument. It's not that Skip has an argument against Andrew Luck, he has an argument against his perception of the argument others have IN REGARD to Andrew Luck. Skip is his own special kind of crazy.
CAN WE PLEASE WAIT UNTIL THIS JANUARY TO CORONATE THIS KID, JUST TO MAKE
SURE HE CAN WIN ONE PLAYOFF GAME WITHOUT TURNING THE BALL OVER?
Right, because that's the only criteria that matters. Luck could go 4-24 for 45 yards, but as long as he doesn't turn the ball over then he's all good with Skip Bayless. Sure.
He's now all of 1-2 in the postseason -- six touchdown passes to eight
interceptions. I certainly don't hold his first playoff game against him
-- that was Luck's rookie year and that was The Return of Ray Lewis, in
Baltimore, and the Ravens were about to go on a Super Bowl roll. Luck
was only 28-of-54 for 288 yards, no TD passes and one interception.
Yes, he "only" threw for 288 yards as a rookie quarterback starting a road playoff game against the team that won the Super Bowl.
For that matter, I'm willing to disregard a rookie season in which Luck
completed a surprisingly low 54 percent of his passes and finished
second in the NFL (to Mark Sanchez) in total turnovers.
Yes, I can see it's forgiven. Thanks be to Skip Bayless for his forgiveness.
Peyton Manning completed 56.7% of his passes during his rookie year, while leading the NFL in interceptions.
Irsay basically told the NFL world that Luck would be better than an aging Peyton Manning with a surgically repaired neck, maybe even in the short term.
No, he did not. He said he wanted to draft a younger franchise quarterback rather than try and get a few more years out of Peyton Manning and then go searching for a franchise quarterback that may not be available at that time.
Still, during his second season last year, Luck continued to play
surprisingly subpar games that nobody (but me) seemed to notice. His QBR
(scale of 0-100) was only 42.5 in Week 6, a 19-9 Monday night loss at
San Diego ... only 13.6 in Week 10, a 38-8 home loss to St. Louis ...
21.9 in Week 12, a 40-11 loss at Arizona ... and 37.1 in Week 13, a
22-14 home win over Tennessee.
Yes Skip, you are the only one who notices these things. Thank God (or should I say, "Thanks be to You, Skip Bayless") that you are around to notice these things.
As of the time Skip wrote this, Luck also had QBR's of 83.1 against Denver, 89.3 against Philadelphia, 94.1 against Jacksonville, 96.7 against Tennessee, 62.0 against Baltimore, 91.4 against the Texans, 73.5 against the New York Giants, and 74.7 against the New England Patriots during the 2014 season. But why talk about Luck's third season when Skip can point out how a quarterback whose greatness is based on his projected improved play didn't play at times well during his second season?
By the way, Luck's QBR against the Chiefs in the playoffs last year was 93.5. This won't be mentioned by Skip because he's too focused on Luck's interceptions, while ignoring the QBR criteria he himself used to prove Luck isn't very good.
Then came the home playoff game against Kansas City last Jan. 4. Luck
threw his second interception on the first play of the second half.
Moments later, the Chiefs led 38-10. He threw his third interception
later in the third quarter, setting up a Chiefs field goal that kept the
Colts in a 41-24 hole.
From then on Andrew was very good ... but very Lucky. The Chiefs lost their top two running backs, Jamaal Charles and Knile Davis. They lost their fastest receiver, Donnie Avery. On defense, they lost two of their best players, sack artist Justin Houston and cornerback Brandon Flowers, and bookend pass-rusher Tamba Hali
was also hurt. Luck was pressured on only two of 25 second-half
dropbacks. A goal-line fumble bounced right back to Luck, who dived home
for a touchdown.
Indy won 45-44.
Sure, he got lucky. That's fine. He also had a QBR of 93.5. Stick to the criteria you yourself use to judge Luck.
But at New England the following Saturday night, Luck went from three to
FOUR interceptions and somehow the Patriots stayed healthy enough to
hang on to a 43-22 win.
"Somehow" the Patriots stayed healthy enough. It wasn't luck they stayed healthy enough, because luck only kicks in when Skip Bayless needs it to in order to prove his point.
And please feel free to focus on my personal biases when it comes to Luck.
That's all that needs to be focused on, because that's the main reason Skip Bayless evaluates professional athletes in the way he does. His personal biases ARE his evaluation of a player.
I watched a lot of Luck at Stanford, and before his draft, I could not
forget the awful second half at Oregon his junior year, the late
pick-six he threw at USC his senior year and that he got outplayed by Brandon Weeden (three TD passes, one interception to two TD passes, one interception) while losing his final college game in the Fiesta Bowl.
I like how Skip conveniently skips the different offenses these two quarterbacks were running. Colt Brennan outplayed a lot of quarterbacks when he was in college. Weeden ran a spread, quarterback-friendly offense at Oklahoma State. You know, a similar offense that led to Weeden and Geno Smith being drafted in the first and second rounds respectively, while Luck ran a pro-style offense at Stanford.
I'd like to hear from Skip on how Luck's line of 27-31 for 347 yards with two touchdowns and one interception was him getting outplayed by Weeden's line of 29-42 for 399 yards with three touchdowns and one interception. Luck had a rating of 196.0 to Weeden's 167.7. Luck had 52 fewer yards on 11 fewer pass attempts.
By the way, Tom Brady didn't even start full-time in college and Peyton Manning couldn't beat Florida. Bringing up shit that happened in college isn't always the best indicator of a quarterback's ability in the NFL.
I predicted Robert Griffin III would prove to be the slightly better pro -- and for a season I was right.
For a season Skip was right, which means to the rest of the population that Skip was wrong. But Skip can't be wrong because he was right for a really short period of time. Skip wants readers to focus on that short period of time instead of the larger period of time where Griffin has regressed while Luck has progressed.
For now, RG III has lost confidence in his injured legs, has lost some
of his teammates and has been in danger of losing his job. But RG III
vs. Luck isn't over. Not yet.
Okay, no one said RG3 v. Luck was over yet. Notice how Skip is desperately trying to turn this discussion of Andrew Luck into a debate over RG3 versus Luck. It's all he knows. Debate, debate, debate where facts don't matter if the volume of your voice is loud enough.
On air, I also took this stand the day Irsay parted ways with Peyton:
big mistake. Peyton, I said, would give the Colts a better shot at
winning the Super Bowl in each of the next three seasons. I believe I've
been right about that, too.
And Skip was making the fallacy of assuming the switch from Manning to Luck was a short-term move, which it clearly wasn't. So as usual, Skip is arguing on the wrong points in the hopes of scoring points by changing the frame of the discussion through making assumptions that help to prove his point.
But remember, I'm now forced to evaluate Luck by "top five" standards.
Nope, that's a standard you set by claiming others set this standard.
That's the context in which Luck is often reverently ranked on "First Take."
This doesn't mean this is the context on which Luck is ranked everywhere else. "First Take" is an outlier because it has two moronic mouth-breathing trolls debating each other. You can't assume you are skinny just because you are the lightest one at fat camp. Being the tallest midget doesn't mean you can dunk a basketball on a ten foot goal.
Remember, too, our show is two hours of live, unscripted debate five
days a week. We defend our positions with often stubborn pride and
passion -- sometimes twice a show on an issue such as Luck vs. Peyton or
Luck vs. RG III. "Hating" Luck is more about hating losing a debate.
As I have said previously, the debate over Luck has nothing to do with his performance, but has to do with Skip's ego and which way his personal biases steer him.
But I'm starting to wonder who has lost more objectivity about Luck --
me or his universe of supporters. Just about every analyst I know (as
well as Stephen A.) dug in on Luck's future greatness before he was
drafted.
Nobody, Skip. Nobody could ever have more objectivity than the guy who admits he lets his personal biases against Luck affect his opinion of Luck. Who could be more objective than a person who admits his personal biases play a part in his player evaluations?
They all want to be proved right.
Said Skip Bayless while talking about himself.
Heck, many fans surely root for Luck just because he comes across as
such a humble, normal guy who happens to be star quarterback.
Earlier in this column Skip stated that Luck was a good guy because he came across as a humble, normal guy. So it's not okay to cheer for Luck because of this. It's interesting that Skip thinks these people lose objectivity of Luck's performance because they personally like him, while Skip thinks his own objectivity isn't marred by the fact he doesn't personally like Luck for reasons created in Skip's own head.
But, at the risk of committing heresy, is it fair to ask if Luck has a
weird propensity for almost inexplicably losing focus for a quarter, or a
half, or even a game and throwing what-was-he-thinking interceptions?
No, it's not heresy if you can name specific situations where this has occurred. It's relevant in regard to Luck's performance. Stop acting like a victim and misframing the opposition's argument.
I (for one) need to see Andrew Lock win a few more playoff games.
Of course you do, Skip. You ragged on Peyton Manning and his legacy after he won a few more playoff games. Keep moving the goalposts, Skip, so that you can save your ego from the possibility that you may ever be wrong. Once Luck wins a few more playoff games it will be, "Why hasn't Luck won more Super Bowls?" Also, no one said Luck is a lock for the Hall of Fame, so don't call him "Andrew Lock."
And this could (even should) be his turn and time. He now has a running game (thanks to Ahmad Bradshaw)
He's injured now.
Who knows? Luck's team could wind up with home-field advantage all the way to the Super Bowl. If he pulls off what Russell Wilson did last playoffs, I'll be the first to stand and applaud.
No, you won't. You will move the goalposts again in an effort to not be seen as wrong. Then you'll screech some bullshit on "First Take," and the only idiot in the media ESPN could find who can't out-debate Skip Bayless, Stephen A. Smith, will screech bullshit back and we all lose.
Until then, alone, I will wait and see.
You are not alone. No one said Andrew Luck was a first-ballot Hall of Famer. You make things up. Go away.
Showing posts with label getting lucky. Show all posts
Showing posts with label getting lucky. Show all posts
Monday, December 8, 2014
Saturday, February 8, 2014
4 comments Skip Bayless Trolls as Hard as Possible When Talking about Andrew Luck
There is a certain awfulness that goes without explanation. Skip Bayless displays this type of awfulness. He's horrible, an attention-whore, and a massive troll. He's mastered the art of taking a strong position that gets him attention and then not moving from that position. He's incapable of being argued with because he's so stupid you can't refute his points, because he has no points, only a differentiating level of volume at which he yells his desperate attempts to troll. Today, Skip writes about Andrew Luck. He says that Andrew Luck is not a first ballot Hall of Famer and he isn't an elite quarterback yet. Yep, this is all true. I don't know why the point is being argued. In fact, I jokingly call Luck "a future Hall of Famer" and other sarcastic names because it feels like he's been anointed by some in the media, so you would think I could agree with Skip. But that's the beauty of Skip Bayless. He takes a relevant point, that Andrew Luck is not elite, and somehow manages to make someone (such as myself) who agrees with this point disagree with him because Skip takes it to the extreme and argues using a straw man argument that make zero relevant arguments.
No doubt I'll soon snap out of my stupor, update my Lasik surgery and view Andrew Luck the way seemingly everyone but me does: as the next Greatest Quarterback Ever
I say this jokingly and as a parody of many who are overly-enamored with Luck. This is a reasonable viewpoint. So why is Skip seem so unreasonable when defending the viewpoint?
and even (beware lightning strike) the NFL's Michael Jordan.
The Colts GM compared Andrew Luck to Michael Jordan. This is not a widely-accepted opinion and is only an example of a team's GM talking up that team's quarterback. Yet, Skip makes it seem like everyone thinks Luck is the NFL's Michael Jordan.
"It's like Jordan when he'd take the last shot -- he wants the ball," Grigson told NFL.com after his Colts had come from 38-10 down to mortify the Chiefs in last Saturday's very wild-card game.
And yes, Colts coach Chuck Pagano merely suggested that Luck "is probably gonna go down as one of the best, if not the best, ever to play when all is said and done."
This is just an example of a team's coaches and upper management talking up their franchise player. So yes, Skip is excused for not thinking as much of Andrew Luck as Luck's employer does. I'm betting Andrew Luck doesn't think as much of Skip Bayless as ESPN does.
Understand, Grigson went MJ and Pagano reached for Greatest Ever soon after Luck had thrown THREE interceptions in his home dome
Luck did lead a pretty good comeback after throwing those interceptions. Luck threw four interceptions the following week at New England, which obviously is not so good. Again, Luck isn't elite and those who believe Luck is elite probably are employed by the Indianapolis Colts. He's not there yet, but that doesn't stop Skip Bayless from acting like EVERYONE thinks Luck is elite.
against a Kansas City team that had lost five of its final seven games, had lost to injury early in this game its best offensive weapon (Jamaal Charles), then its fastest receiver (Donnie Avery), then its backup running back (Knile Davis) … while also losing both starting cornerbacks, Brandon Flowers and Dunta Robinson, and eventually losing its best pass rusher, Justin Houston, whose bookend, Tamba Hali, was sadly limited on a knee that had to be drained the week before.
Once the Chiefs' pass rush disappeared, and they were down to third-string running back Cyrus Gray,
Yes, the Chiefs were injured and this was fortunate for the Colts. Davis wasn't injured until later in the game, as was Justin Houston, so Luck still did a great job leading the comeback.
and they had no one left who could cover T.Y. Hilton, I (for one) would've been disappointed in Luck if he HADN'T finished off the comeback
See, this is typical Skip Bayless writing. He would have been disappointed if Luck didn't come back from 28 points down in the third quarter to win the game. Just think about for a second, because we know Skip didn't think about it before writing the sentence. Down 38-10 in the third quarter it's fine to think, "Man, the Colts could come back if they get a few breaks to go their way." Sure, it could happen. To expect the Colts to comeback and win the game to the point you would be disappointed if the Colts didn't outscore the Chiefs by 28 points in the second half is absolutely unreasonable. But that's Skip. He's unreasonable and that's why you can't argue with him. He will throw his fingers in his ears and try to hammer home the same point you have already disproven several times over.
Andrew was really good, but Andrew was Lucky.
If this were the late 1800's a man could hang for writing such a bad pun in a sentence.
I'm sorry, but THAT game -- Luck's first playoff win in two tries --
Two whole tries. Luck lost last year to the eventual Super Bowl champion Baltimore Ravens and I'm sure Skip would argue Luck wasn't elite then either.
is being viewed by many as Luck's Canton-bound coronation?
In all seriousness, who is doing this? I joke about it, but Skip clearly has a bug up his ass and thinks somebody somewhere (or the proverbial "they" that often don't exist except in the deluded mind of a person) is saying Andrew Luck should be in the Hall of Fame after his comeback against the Chiefs. We won't find any links because Skip won't and can't provide any. He's just disproving an argument he wants others to make, not a real argument that is widely being made.
What exactly is it about this kid that inspires so many to race to proclaim him the This or the That while stumbling blindly past obvious negatives?
He's a white, pocket-passer quarterback from an excellent school who is smart and plays well with the media. It also helps that Andrew Luck seems to have no life outside of playing football, which the media always appreciates. He's also made the playoffs in both of his seasons as an NFL quarterback, which really, really helps the media's opinion of him.
I see a big, smart, fairly athletic, remarkably resilient QB who throws a nice deep ball -- a fine young player. I do not see a lock first-ballot Hall of Famer. Not yet, at least.
So Skip's basic argument is that Luck isn't a first ballot Hall of Famer yet. Is there really someone out there who thinks Luck IS a first ballot Hall of Famer at this point in his career? I doubt it. But in his efforts to troll, attention can't be paid to the fact few or no people are making the argument Skip is refuting.
I watched Luck a lot in college. On an ESPNU show, I picked Stanford to win at Oregon when Luck was a redshirt sophomore. Stanford led 31-24 at half … and lost the second half 28-0 as Luck threw two interceptions.
Andrew Luck made Skip Bayless look stupid one time. That's really what this is all about. Also, lost in Skip's "me me me" commentary, notice the Stanford defense gave up 52 points in this game. 52 points. But yes, this one college game from three years ago goes to prove Luck is not a first ballot Hall of Famer. Great point.
When Luck was a junior, I saw the late interception returned for a touchdown that nearly cost Stanford the game at USC, and while Luck played pretty well in the Fiesta Bowl, I watched Oklahoma State's Brandon Weeden outplay him.
Here's Skip's biggest problem when making his trolling arguments. Very few of these arguments are based on fact and he relies on his audience being as dumb as he is. Luck "played pretty well" in the Fiesta Bowl. I would say so. He was 27-31 for 347 yards, throwing two touchdowns and one interception. He threw four incompletions during the entire game. I guess that's "pretty good" though I'm sure Skip would argue he would have been disappointed if Luck threw any incompletions.
Brandon Weeden was 29-42 for 399 yards, throwing three touchdowns and one interception by the way. I'll let you as the reader decide which quarterback outplayed the other, but I'm feeling like this was a draw. Leave it to Skip to describe a quarterback who threw four incompletions in a BCS game as "playing pretty well."
I see no Elway or Favre or Marino in his game -- no wow factor. While his teammates all seem to love him -- how could they not? -- I don't see dynamic leadership. I see consistently, solidly unspectacular.
I forgot where flair and dynamic leadership were prerequisites for being a Hall of Fame quarterback or even a quarterback who can win a Super Bowl. Does Eli Manning or Joe Flacco have dynamic leadership? Heck, is Peyton Manning even a dynamic leader or just a really good quarterback who leads by example? I would argue the "wow" factor is probably the worst way to evaluate a quarterback's eliteness or not. Yes, Luck isn't elite, but it has nothing to do with whether he has the "wow" factor or not. This is what Skip Bayless looks for. Flash and the "wow" factor when he looks at a quarterback. This is also why Skip Bayless is horrible.
This is why Skip likes Tebow so much, because Tebow has the "wow" factor and has charisma. A quarterback has to have more than that, which is why Tim Tebow is currently a co-worker of Skip Bayless and no longer playing quarterback in the NFL.
This season, Luck has thrown for 300 or more yards only three times -- all spectacular losses, 38-8 to St. Louis at home, 24-20 to Miami at home (when Ryan Tannehill outplayed Luck) and 42-28 at Cincinnati.
You be the judge on whether Tannehill outplayed Luck in this game.
Luck: 25-43 for 321 yards with one touchdown and one interception. He had a 51.5 QBR and 79.7 QB rating.
Tannehill: 23-34 for 319 yards with one touchdown and zero interceptions. He had a 44.4 QBR and a 107.4 rating.
It looks like Luck got outplayed, but it wasn't because he necessarily played poorly, but because Tannehill played so well.
Peyton Manning, the Colts' legend replaced by Luck, has thrown for 300 or more 12 times this season, winning 11
Comparing an actual first ballot Hall of Famer in his 15th season who has receivers by the name of Wes Welker, Demaryius Thomas, Eric Decker and Julius Thomas to a guy playing his second season in the NFL who has receivers by the name of Reggie Wayne, T.Y. Hilton, Coby Fleener, and Darrius Heyward-Bey is the epitome of stupidity. Or should I just say, "Being a Skip Bayless"? No one is arguing Luck is currently on Manning's level, so the comparison is just dumb.
His only loss? Naturally, his wildly anticipated return to the House That He Built in Indy. That Sunday night, Peyton threw for 386, three touchdowns and an interception. Luck: 228, three touchdowns, no interceptions.
That's Luck.
Yes, that is Luck. He's a second year quarterback who isn't capable of keeping up with elite NFL quarterbacks because he is not yet elite. The opinion of Luck's employer doesn't mean everyone else shares the opinion. Again, Skip is refuting a point I'm not sure is widely being made. Luck looks like he may one day be an elite quarterback, but he's not there yet.
At his best -- and worst -- he's actually more Eli than Peyton.
That sucks because Eli has two Super Bowl rings. How embarrassing for Andrew Luck.
But like Eli, Andrew has an unsinkable, almost oblivious confidence. High football IQ but no ability to remember mistakes. Luck knows he was born to play QB, so if he screws up, so what, he just shrugs and keeps playing, as Kansas City will attest.
This is as opposed to being like David Carr and ducking at the upcoming pass rush because you are shell-shocked from being sacked too many times?
Peyton seems keenly aware of the moment and its historical perspective...But Luck will let his pedigree get the better of him -- he will occasionally go Eli and try something he shouldn't. In the past two seasons, he has had four three-interception games in the regular season, second-most in the NFL to … Eli, with six. Last season, his rookie year, Luck had the NFL's second-most turnovers, 23, just three fewer than Mark "Butt Fumble" Sanchez.
I've criticized Luck for being turnover prone as well, so Skip has a point in regard to Luck's turnovers. Where Skip has no point is he is comparing Luck, a rookie quarterback, to Mark Sanchez who is not a rookie quarterback, and only in the context of turnovers. It's misleading. Luck is turnover-prone, but Peyton Manning threw 43 interceptions is his first two years in the NFL. Andrew Luck has 27 his first two seasons in the NFL. Fine, I won't count Manning's first two seasons in the NFL. In Manning's third and fourth year in the NFL he threw 38 interceptions. Good point, let's not include Manning's third or fourth year. In Manning's fifth and sixth season in the NFL he threw 29 interceptions. Luck threw 27 interceptions his first two seasons in the NFL. Yes, he has fumbled quite a bit but this is a product of being a rookie and lacking pocket awareness, along with his offensive line having deficiencies. The argument that Luck has thrown too many interceptions to be elite doesn't hold up even when comparing Luck to Skip's cherry-picked Hall of Fame quarterback.
Andrew Luck turned the ball over too much in his rookie season and he turned it over too much in the playoffs, but these turnovers aren't a warning that he can't one day be an elite quarterback. It's a warning that he needs to improve his decision-making and ability to read an NFL defense. You know, things nearly every young quarterback has to do. As far as Skip's lazy-ass analysis that Luck throws the interceptions because his pedigree gets the better of him, but Peyton seems keenly aware of the moment, well the turnover totals for each quarterback doesn't reflect this as true. Possibly Peyton NOW understands the moment and historical perspective, but Skip is comparing two quarterback in completely different stages of their careers.
Back on that field for a playoff game this Saturday night, Luck is just as likely to outplay Brady as he is to throw the same interceptions he did last Saturday against the Chiefs.
He did not outplay Brady and Luck threw four interceptions. He played badly and he isn't an elite quarterback yet. No bad comparisons to Eli/Peyton Manning are needed to show this as being true.
Luck now has nine fourth-quarter comebacks and 11 game-winning drives -- hence "Michael Jordan." Yet nearly all are of the slow, steady variety.
Considering an offense can only score 7-8 points in a single touchdown drive it's kind of hard to overcome a 28 point deficit in a quick and easy manner. But yeah Skip, you are an idiot. What does it matter if Luck's comebacks have been slow, steady or fast comebacks? Skip is ridiculously trying to criticize Luck for not coming back fast enough. Troll hard, enemy.
Against Seattle, the Colts took the lead for good at 31-28 after a 14-play, 86-yard drive produced a touchdown (and two-point conversion) with 8 minutes, 55 seconds left.
This is typical Skip Bayless. When presented with evidence of his being wrong, he argues further rather than just concede a comeback is a comeback no matter how long it takes.
Yes, the Colts' defense still had to stop Russell Wilson and Co. twice more to preserve Luck's "Jordanesque" heroics.
In any comeback the defense has to stop the opposing offense for the comeback to work. This isn't new nor is this telling us anything of importance. The fact the Colts defense stopped the Seahawks is impressive, but when discussing a quarterback who has led a comeback it is always necessary for the defense to stop the opposing offense to preserve the heroics.
What's really funny about Skip Bayless arguing a quarterback isn't heroic because he leads a comeback since the defense has to stop the other team is that he has argued the exact opposite on repeated occasions when discussing Tim Tebow. When discussing Tebow's heroics Skip never mentions the Broncos defense had to stop the opposing team. No, in that case the comeback was all Tebow. When Skip wants to bash Andrew Luck, all of a sudden the Colts defense is an important part of the comeback.
The great news Saturday was the second-biggest comeback in NFL history. The bad news: The Chiefs led 38-10 without Jamaal Charles.
And gosh, what unit could be partially responsible for the Chiefs scoring 38 points? I guess the defense that played such a vital part in the comeback isn't a vital part of allowing the Chiefs to score 38 points by the third quarter.
Yes, the Colts' defense ranks no better than 20th, while they're tied for 20th in rushing. And yes, Luck lost a mentor and go-to receiver, Reggie Wayne, for the season on Oct. 20. But seriously, is Luck having Jordanesque impact?
His coach said that. This isn't a widely-held opinion.
Does that, as my "First Take" debate partner Stephen A. Smith says, qualify Luck as a "game-changer who just oozes greatness"?
Stephen A. Smith is as brain-dead as Skip Bayless is. They each take strong opposing views and then scream and yell at each other like delusional senior citizens fighting over the last Bingo card until the next commercial break. Neither of them is right.
Maybe I'd be more sold if Luck acted more like a star. Maybe so many rush to lionize Luck because he's just so ordinary-Joe likeable.
As I said, Skip is brain-dead. He would think Luck is a better quarterback if he acted more like a star? What does Luck's actions have to do with his quarterbacking skill? And again, Tim Tebow is very unassuming and ordinary-Joe likeable, yet Skip couldn't wait to lionize him. If Luck acted more like a star then Skip would criticize Luck for acting like the star he isn't. Can't fool me.
I was on record before Luck's draft that Robert Griffin III would prove to be the better NFL QB. He certainly made me look right last season with his 20 TD passes to just five interceptions, fifth-in-the-NFL QBR, division title and 14-0 lead over Seattle in his first playoff game before aggravating, then wrecking, his knee.
Good thing Griffin wasn't playing Luck or else Skip wouldn't give Luck any credit for leading a comeback down 14-0 on the road in a playoff game.
But this season, RG III made the Luck-lovers beam when he let his stardom go to head, rushed back from knee surgery and forgot how to play quarterback.
I don't understand Skip's insistence on playing this out as a Griffin v. Luck debate where those people who like Andrew Luck are happy for the misfortune that befalls Robert Griffin. I think Skip assumes that everyone lives their life in a constant antagonistic debate between two strong opposing points of view. I don't know why the Luck-lovers would be happy Griffin had a bad year.
The day the Colts eased Peyton out the back door in favor of Luck, I said they were making a monumental mistake. The NFL is a win-now business and Peyton, I said, would give the Colts a better chance of winning a Super Bowl for the next three seasons (last year, this year and next). For the second straight year, Peyton has lifted Denver to a 13-3 record and potentially two home playoff games, this time with a record-shattering 55 TD passes and 5,477 yards.
But last year, of course, Peyton's postseason record fell to 9-11 and he lost his third straight playoff game thanks to a Hail Flacco that forced the overtime in which Peyton threw the killer interception.
Advantage, Andrew?
It sounds like Luck has won this fictional antagonistic debate that Skip Bayless seems to believe is a reality.
Maybe I'm asking for it to dare to doubt this kid as he returns to face the Patriots (my Super Bowl pick) and the pretty-boy quarterback who got Eli-ed twice in Super Bowls.
This is Skip Bayless saying, "Troll me and give me attention. I thrive off attention because my mom never loved me, my dad ignored me and I'm so insecure that I don't believe I exist unless I'm given constant attention."
This is Skip's intention in writing this column. He writes a strongly-worded column that takes a strong point of view and then thrives off the attention given to him that he has so desperately attempted to receive in writing the column.
Maybe, late Saturday night, you'll tell me, "Told you."
Seriously, please give Skip attention. He's saying Andrew Luck is not a first ballot Hall of Famer right now and is comparing him to veteran Hall of Fame-caliber quarterbacks to prove his point. It's a terribly written article and I'm not sure if it's on purpose or not, but one thing is for sure on purpose. Skip wants your attention and he wants people to hate him or love him for his strong hot sports takes.
No doubt I'll soon snap out of my stupor, update my Lasik surgery and view Andrew Luck the way seemingly everyone but me does: as the next Greatest Quarterback Ever
I say this jokingly and as a parody of many who are overly-enamored with Luck. This is a reasonable viewpoint. So why is Skip seem so unreasonable when defending the viewpoint?
and even (beware lightning strike) the NFL's Michael Jordan.
The Colts GM compared Andrew Luck to Michael Jordan. This is not a widely-accepted opinion and is only an example of a team's GM talking up that team's quarterback. Yet, Skip makes it seem like everyone thinks Luck is the NFL's Michael Jordan.
"It's like Jordan when he'd take the last shot -- he wants the ball," Grigson told NFL.com after his Colts had come from 38-10 down to mortify the Chiefs in last Saturday's very wild-card game.
And yes, Colts coach Chuck Pagano merely suggested that Luck "is probably gonna go down as one of the best, if not the best, ever to play when all is said and done."
This is just an example of a team's coaches and upper management talking up their franchise player. So yes, Skip is excused for not thinking as much of Andrew Luck as Luck's employer does. I'm betting Andrew Luck doesn't think as much of Skip Bayless as ESPN does.
Understand, Grigson went MJ and Pagano reached for Greatest Ever soon after Luck had thrown THREE interceptions in his home dome
Luck did lead a pretty good comeback after throwing those interceptions. Luck threw four interceptions the following week at New England, which obviously is not so good. Again, Luck isn't elite and those who believe Luck is elite probably are employed by the Indianapolis Colts. He's not there yet, but that doesn't stop Skip Bayless from acting like EVERYONE thinks Luck is elite.
against a Kansas City team that had lost five of its final seven games, had lost to injury early in this game its best offensive weapon (Jamaal Charles), then its fastest receiver (Donnie Avery), then its backup running back (Knile Davis) … while also losing both starting cornerbacks, Brandon Flowers and Dunta Robinson, and eventually losing its best pass rusher, Justin Houston, whose bookend, Tamba Hali, was sadly limited on a knee that had to be drained the week before.
Once the Chiefs' pass rush disappeared, and they were down to third-string running back Cyrus Gray,
Yes, the Chiefs were injured and this was fortunate for the Colts. Davis wasn't injured until later in the game, as was Justin Houston, so Luck still did a great job leading the comeback.
and they had no one left who could cover T.Y. Hilton, I (for one) would've been disappointed in Luck if he HADN'T finished off the comeback
See, this is typical Skip Bayless writing. He would have been disappointed if Luck didn't come back from 28 points down in the third quarter to win the game. Just think about for a second, because we know Skip didn't think about it before writing the sentence. Down 38-10 in the third quarter it's fine to think, "Man, the Colts could come back if they get a few breaks to go their way." Sure, it could happen. To expect the Colts to comeback and win the game to the point you would be disappointed if the Colts didn't outscore the Chiefs by 28 points in the second half is absolutely unreasonable. But that's Skip. He's unreasonable and that's why you can't argue with him. He will throw his fingers in his ears and try to hammer home the same point you have already disproven several times over.
Andrew was really good, but Andrew was Lucky.
If this were the late 1800's a man could hang for writing such a bad pun in a sentence.
I'm sorry, but THAT game -- Luck's first playoff win in two tries --
Two whole tries. Luck lost last year to the eventual Super Bowl champion Baltimore Ravens and I'm sure Skip would argue Luck wasn't elite then either.
is being viewed by many as Luck's Canton-bound coronation?
In all seriousness, who is doing this? I joke about it, but Skip clearly has a bug up his ass and thinks somebody somewhere (or the proverbial "they" that often don't exist except in the deluded mind of a person) is saying Andrew Luck should be in the Hall of Fame after his comeback against the Chiefs. We won't find any links because Skip won't and can't provide any. He's just disproving an argument he wants others to make, not a real argument that is widely being made.
What exactly is it about this kid that inspires so many to race to proclaim him the This or the That while stumbling blindly past obvious negatives?
He's a white, pocket-passer quarterback from an excellent school who is smart and plays well with the media. It also helps that Andrew Luck seems to have no life outside of playing football, which the media always appreciates. He's also made the playoffs in both of his seasons as an NFL quarterback, which really, really helps the media's opinion of him.
I see a big, smart, fairly athletic, remarkably resilient QB who throws a nice deep ball -- a fine young player. I do not see a lock first-ballot Hall of Famer. Not yet, at least.
So Skip's basic argument is that Luck isn't a first ballot Hall of Famer yet. Is there really someone out there who thinks Luck IS a first ballot Hall of Famer at this point in his career? I doubt it. But in his efforts to troll, attention can't be paid to the fact few or no people are making the argument Skip is refuting.
I watched Luck a lot in college. On an ESPNU show, I picked Stanford to win at Oregon when Luck was a redshirt sophomore. Stanford led 31-24 at half … and lost the second half 28-0 as Luck threw two interceptions.
Andrew Luck made Skip Bayless look stupid one time. That's really what this is all about. Also, lost in Skip's "me me me" commentary, notice the Stanford defense gave up 52 points in this game. 52 points. But yes, this one college game from three years ago goes to prove Luck is not a first ballot Hall of Famer. Great point.
When Luck was a junior, I saw the late interception returned for a touchdown that nearly cost Stanford the game at USC, and while Luck played pretty well in the Fiesta Bowl, I watched Oklahoma State's Brandon Weeden outplay him.
Here's Skip's biggest problem when making his trolling arguments. Very few of these arguments are based on fact and he relies on his audience being as dumb as he is. Luck "played pretty well" in the Fiesta Bowl. I would say so. He was 27-31 for 347 yards, throwing two touchdowns and one interception. He threw four incompletions during the entire game. I guess that's "pretty good" though I'm sure Skip would argue he would have been disappointed if Luck threw any incompletions.
Brandon Weeden was 29-42 for 399 yards, throwing three touchdowns and one interception by the way. I'll let you as the reader decide which quarterback outplayed the other, but I'm feeling like this was a draw. Leave it to Skip to describe a quarterback who threw four incompletions in a BCS game as "playing pretty well."
I see no Elway or Favre or Marino in his game -- no wow factor. While his teammates all seem to love him -- how could they not? -- I don't see dynamic leadership. I see consistently, solidly unspectacular.
I forgot where flair and dynamic leadership were prerequisites for being a Hall of Fame quarterback or even a quarterback who can win a Super Bowl. Does Eli Manning or Joe Flacco have dynamic leadership? Heck, is Peyton Manning even a dynamic leader or just a really good quarterback who leads by example? I would argue the "wow" factor is probably the worst way to evaluate a quarterback's eliteness or not. Yes, Luck isn't elite, but it has nothing to do with whether he has the "wow" factor or not. This is what Skip Bayless looks for. Flash and the "wow" factor when he looks at a quarterback. This is also why Skip Bayless is horrible.
This is why Skip likes Tebow so much, because Tebow has the "wow" factor and has charisma. A quarterback has to have more than that, which is why Tim Tebow is currently a co-worker of Skip Bayless and no longer playing quarterback in the NFL.
This season, Luck has thrown for 300 or more yards only three times -- all spectacular losses, 38-8 to St. Louis at home, 24-20 to Miami at home (when Ryan Tannehill outplayed Luck) and 42-28 at Cincinnati.
You be the judge on whether Tannehill outplayed Luck in this game.
Luck: 25-43 for 321 yards with one touchdown and one interception. He had a 51.5 QBR and 79.7 QB rating.
Tannehill: 23-34 for 319 yards with one touchdown and zero interceptions. He had a 44.4 QBR and a 107.4 rating.
It looks like Luck got outplayed, but it wasn't because he necessarily played poorly, but because Tannehill played so well.
Peyton Manning, the Colts' legend replaced by Luck, has thrown for 300 or more 12 times this season, winning 11
Comparing an actual first ballot Hall of Famer in his 15th season who has receivers by the name of Wes Welker, Demaryius Thomas, Eric Decker and Julius Thomas to a guy playing his second season in the NFL who has receivers by the name of Reggie Wayne, T.Y. Hilton, Coby Fleener, and Darrius Heyward-Bey is the epitome of stupidity. Or should I just say, "Being a Skip Bayless"? No one is arguing Luck is currently on Manning's level, so the comparison is just dumb.
His only loss? Naturally, his wildly anticipated return to the House That He Built in Indy. That Sunday night, Peyton threw for 386, three touchdowns and an interception. Luck: 228, three touchdowns, no interceptions.
That's Luck.
Yes, that is Luck. He's a second year quarterback who isn't capable of keeping up with elite NFL quarterbacks because he is not yet elite. The opinion of Luck's employer doesn't mean everyone else shares the opinion. Again, Skip is refuting a point I'm not sure is widely being made. Luck looks like he may one day be an elite quarterback, but he's not there yet.
At his best -- and worst -- he's actually more Eli than Peyton.
That sucks because Eli has two Super Bowl rings. How embarrassing for Andrew Luck.
But like Eli, Andrew has an unsinkable, almost oblivious confidence. High football IQ but no ability to remember mistakes. Luck knows he was born to play QB, so if he screws up, so what, he just shrugs and keeps playing, as Kansas City will attest.
This is as opposed to being like David Carr and ducking at the upcoming pass rush because you are shell-shocked from being sacked too many times?
Peyton seems keenly aware of the moment and its historical perspective...But Luck will let his pedigree get the better of him -- he will occasionally go Eli and try something he shouldn't. In the past two seasons, he has had four three-interception games in the regular season, second-most in the NFL to … Eli, with six. Last season, his rookie year, Luck had the NFL's second-most turnovers, 23, just three fewer than Mark "Butt Fumble" Sanchez.
I've criticized Luck for being turnover prone as well, so Skip has a point in regard to Luck's turnovers. Where Skip has no point is he is comparing Luck, a rookie quarterback, to Mark Sanchez who is not a rookie quarterback, and only in the context of turnovers. It's misleading. Luck is turnover-prone, but Peyton Manning threw 43 interceptions is his first two years in the NFL. Andrew Luck has 27 his first two seasons in the NFL. Fine, I won't count Manning's first two seasons in the NFL. In Manning's third and fourth year in the NFL he threw 38 interceptions. Good point, let's not include Manning's third or fourth year. In Manning's fifth and sixth season in the NFL he threw 29 interceptions. Luck threw 27 interceptions his first two seasons in the NFL. Yes, he has fumbled quite a bit but this is a product of being a rookie and lacking pocket awareness, along with his offensive line having deficiencies. The argument that Luck has thrown too many interceptions to be elite doesn't hold up even when comparing Luck to Skip's cherry-picked Hall of Fame quarterback.
Andrew Luck turned the ball over too much in his rookie season and he turned it over too much in the playoffs, but these turnovers aren't a warning that he can't one day be an elite quarterback. It's a warning that he needs to improve his decision-making and ability to read an NFL defense. You know, things nearly every young quarterback has to do. As far as Skip's lazy-ass analysis that Luck throws the interceptions because his pedigree gets the better of him, but Peyton seems keenly aware of the moment, well the turnover totals for each quarterback doesn't reflect this as true. Possibly Peyton NOW understands the moment and historical perspective, but Skip is comparing two quarterback in completely different stages of their careers.
Back on that field for a playoff game this Saturday night, Luck is just as likely to outplay Brady as he is to throw the same interceptions he did last Saturday against the Chiefs.
He did not outplay Brady and Luck threw four interceptions. He played badly and he isn't an elite quarterback yet. No bad comparisons to Eli/Peyton Manning are needed to show this as being true.
Luck now has nine fourth-quarter comebacks and 11 game-winning drives -- hence "Michael Jordan." Yet nearly all are of the slow, steady variety.
Considering an offense can only score 7-8 points in a single touchdown drive it's kind of hard to overcome a 28 point deficit in a quick and easy manner. But yeah Skip, you are an idiot. What does it matter if Luck's comebacks have been slow, steady or fast comebacks? Skip is ridiculously trying to criticize Luck for not coming back fast enough. Troll hard, enemy.
Against Seattle, the Colts took the lead for good at 31-28 after a 14-play, 86-yard drive produced a touchdown (and two-point conversion) with 8 minutes, 55 seconds left.
This is typical Skip Bayless. When presented with evidence of his being wrong, he argues further rather than just concede a comeback is a comeback no matter how long it takes.
Yes, the Colts' defense still had to stop Russell Wilson and Co. twice more to preserve Luck's "Jordanesque" heroics.
In any comeback the defense has to stop the opposing offense for the comeback to work. This isn't new nor is this telling us anything of importance. The fact the Colts defense stopped the Seahawks is impressive, but when discussing a quarterback who has led a comeback it is always necessary for the defense to stop the opposing offense to preserve the heroics.
What's really funny about Skip Bayless arguing a quarterback isn't heroic because he leads a comeback since the defense has to stop the other team is that he has argued the exact opposite on repeated occasions when discussing Tim Tebow. When discussing Tebow's heroics Skip never mentions the Broncos defense had to stop the opposing team. No, in that case the comeback was all Tebow. When Skip wants to bash Andrew Luck, all of a sudden the Colts defense is an important part of the comeback.
The great news Saturday was the second-biggest comeback in NFL history. The bad news: The Chiefs led 38-10 without Jamaal Charles.
And gosh, what unit could be partially responsible for the Chiefs scoring 38 points? I guess the defense that played such a vital part in the comeback isn't a vital part of allowing the Chiefs to score 38 points by the third quarter.
Yes, the Colts' defense ranks no better than 20th, while they're tied for 20th in rushing. And yes, Luck lost a mentor and go-to receiver, Reggie Wayne, for the season on Oct. 20. But seriously, is Luck having Jordanesque impact?
His coach said that. This isn't a widely-held opinion.
Does that, as my "First Take" debate partner Stephen A. Smith says, qualify Luck as a "game-changer who just oozes greatness"?
Stephen A. Smith is as brain-dead as Skip Bayless is. They each take strong opposing views and then scream and yell at each other like delusional senior citizens fighting over the last Bingo card until the next commercial break. Neither of them is right.
Maybe I'd be more sold if Luck acted more like a star. Maybe so many rush to lionize Luck because he's just so ordinary-Joe likeable.
As I said, Skip is brain-dead. He would think Luck is a better quarterback if he acted more like a star? What does Luck's actions have to do with his quarterbacking skill? And again, Tim Tebow is very unassuming and ordinary-Joe likeable, yet Skip couldn't wait to lionize him. If Luck acted more like a star then Skip would criticize Luck for acting like the star he isn't. Can't fool me.
I was on record before Luck's draft that Robert Griffin III would prove to be the better NFL QB. He certainly made me look right last season with his 20 TD passes to just five interceptions, fifth-in-the-NFL QBR, division title and 14-0 lead over Seattle in his first playoff game before aggravating, then wrecking, his knee.
Good thing Griffin wasn't playing Luck or else Skip wouldn't give Luck any credit for leading a comeback down 14-0 on the road in a playoff game.
But this season, RG III made the Luck-lovers beam when he let his stardom go to head, rushed back from knee surgery and forgot how to play quarterback.
I don't understand Skip's insistence on playing this out as a Griffin v. Luck debate where those people who like Andrew Luck are happy for the misfortune that befalls Robert Griffin. I think Skip assumes that everyone lives their life in a constant antagonistic debate between two strong opposing points of view. I don't know why the Luck-lovers would be happy Griffin had a bad year.
The day the Colts eased Peyton out the back door in favor of Luck, I said they were making a monumental mistake. The NFL is a win-now business and Peyton, I said, would give the Colts a better chance of winning a Super Bowl for the next three seasons (last year, this year and next). For the second straight year, Peyton has lifted Denver to a 13-3 record and potentially two home playoff games, this time with a record-shattering 55 TD passes and 5,477 yards.
But last year, of course, Peyton's postseason record fell to 9-11 and he lost his third straight playoff game thanks to a Hail Flacco that forced the overtime in which Peyton threw the killer interception.
Advantage, Andrew?
It sounds like Luck has won this fictional antagonistic debate that Skip Bayless seems to believe is a reality.
Maybe I'm asking for it to dare to doubt this kid as he returns to face the Patriots (my Super Bowl pick) and the pretty-boy quarterback who got Eli-ed twice in Super Bowls.
This is Skip Bayless saying, "Troll me and give me attention. I thrive off attention because my mom never loved me, my dad ignored me and I'm so insecure that I don't believe I exist unless I'm given constant attention."
This is Skip's intention in writing this column. He writes a strongly-worded column that takes a strong point of view and then thrives off the attention given to him that he has so desperately attempted to receive in writing the column.
Maybe, late Saturday night, you'll tell me, "Told you."
Seriously, please give Skip attention. He's saying Andrew Luck is not a first ballot Hall of Famer right now and is comparing him to veteran Hall of Fame-caliber quarterbacks to prove his point. It's a terribly written article and I'm not sure if it's on purpose or not, but one thing is for sure on purpose. Skip wants your attention and he wants people to hate him or love him for his strong hot sports takes.
Monday, December 30, 2013
2 comments Tim Tebow is Waiting for His Chance to be an NFL Quarterback While Wearing His Armor...Yep, That's the Semi-Title of this Article
Tim Tebow is not a starting quarterback in the NFL right now. Kevin Scholla thinks this is a travesty. So he writes about Tebow wearing armor (what is this the Crusades?) on the sidelines waiting his turn to be an NFL quarterback again. The author can't figure out why Tim Tebow isn't playing in the NFL. Maybe he should look in the mirror. Tebow's fans are part of the reason he isn't playing in the NFL. No NFL team wants to deal with the media attention and rabid fans of a quarterback who would be at-best a backup. It's simply not worth it to that team. So when wondering why Tebow doesn't have a job in the NFL as a quarterback (another issue is Tebow refuses to switch positions which either shows dedication to being a quarterback or is stupid and selfish of him) perhaps the author should look in the mirror. No team wants to deal with the Tebow circus and writers talking about Tebow wearing armor.
The quarterback carousel in Cleveland continues. Due to more injuries, the Browns have signed Caleb Hanie. They've also brought in Alex Tanney. All this while Brandon Weeden and Jason Campbell are both recovering from concussions. Earlier in the season, Cleveland lost Brian Hoyer to an ACL tear. The situation is a mess. Too bad the Browns still haven't pulled the trigger on the move that makes the most sense.
They have pulled the trigger on the move that makes the most sense. Waiting the season out, drafting a quarterback, and then keeping Hoyer around to be the backup or the starter at the beginning of next season. Boom, done.
Cleveland isn't the only club missing out. While team after team continues to pay inexperienced, below average, losing quarterbacks, Tim Tebow sits and waits.
Tebow waits for his chance to be an inexperienced, below average quarterback who is getting paid? He had the chance last year with the Jets and couldn't beat out Mark Sanchez for the job. Tebow hasn't started an NFL game at quarterback since the 2011 playoffs. Yes, he has an 8-6 career record so he's a "winning" quarterback, but Mark Sanchez has a 33-29 record as a quarterback so he's a "winner" too. There's more to being a good quarterback than just looking at the quarterback's record and deciding he's a "winner."
He is waiting, but he's not sitting around. Tebow is doing what he always does: visiting with and lifting the spirits of sick kids, raising money and awareness for charities,
This is irrelevant. Yes, Tim Tebow is a great guy who does many wonderful things. This doesn't make him a great quarterback. I know many, many good people who do great things for other people, but they are also not very good NFL quarterbacks.
and training just in case someone in the NFL ever awakens from their media induced, peer pressured slumber.
Because we all know NFL teams only do what the media wants them to do. NFL teams will pass up chances to win games just to appease the media. Sure, that's what happens.
I can't help but chuckle at this guy writing about how the media has induced a peer pressure slumber. The media is who has propped Tebow up since he was playing college football at Florida. They have kept the myth of Tebow alive and given a forum to the rabid Tebow fans, while creating more Tebow fans. The idea this writer tries to sell us that the media is preventing Tebow from being an NFL starter is just hilarious. If Tebow wasn't such a good guy then the media would have hounded Tebow out of the NFL permanently by calling him a bust and tearing him down without a debate on Tebow's leadership skills. It's also ironic the writer makes this statement because the media's rabid fascination with Tebow is (in my opinion) a reason he doesn't have an NFL job right now. The media would love for Tebow to play for an NFL team, simply so they could write about Tebow. But yeah, the media is the one holding him down, I believe that.
Yes, the author is really doing this. He's saying that Tebow needs a job in the NFL because he has one playoff victory, then makes a list of other quarterbacks who don't have as many playoff victories as if this is a comparison that should make the reader believe Tebow isn't getting a fair shot. Of course the list sucks and is as misleading as possible in an effort to make it look like many other quarterbacks have gotten a shot to win a playoff game and couldn't succeed in the way Tebow did. I don't think Tebow would approve of the way the author misleads his readers. The author makes his list as long as possible to make the conspiracy to keep Tebow out of the NFL as vast as possible. There are quite a few quarterbacks who are injured reserve on this list as well. I'm going to skip the quarterbacks who have never even appeared in a playoff game, thereby not ever having the chance to show he can win one.
Matt Barkley
He's a rookie quarterback. Shouldn't be on the list.
Tyler Bray
Rookie quarterback.
Jimmy Clausen
He was released and zero teams claimed him, hence nobody wanted him, so he ended up back on the Panthers IR list. Clausen was unwanted, just like Tebow.
Auston Davis
It's spelled "Austin Davis."
Zac Dysert
Rookie quarterback.
Mike Glennon
Rookie quarterback.
EJ Manuel
Rookie quarterback.
Matt McGloin
Rookie quarterback.
Ryan Nassib
Rookie quarterback.
Certainly, there are some young guys on that list that clearly have a bright future and are more talented quarterbacks than Tebow (like Andrew Luck, Cam Newton, Matthew Stafford, Robert Griffin, III),
Yes, there are only four quarterbacks in the NFL more talented than Tebow on that list of quarterbacks who haven't won a playoff game. I could list at least 30 quarterbacks on that list who are more talented than Tim Tebow at playing quarterback.
but for every Newton and Luck, there are multiple Renfrees, Stanzis, and Tuels. Can these clubs really say they are better off with these names than they would be with Tebow?
Considering these quarterbacks are all backups or third-string quarterbacks, then yes, these teams can say they are better off with these names than they would be with Tebow. Tebow brings too much scrutiny and attention for a third-string quarterback.
Along with that list of those who have not had any playoff success, Tebow is also on par with some big names when it comes to playoff wins.
This is an interesting little fact that Tebow has one playoff win like some current NFL starters, but this doesn't mean Tebow is a better quarterback than these NFL starters. It just means Tebow won a playoff game. He has a whole entire other resume, including another playoff game he participated in, that tells us what kind of quarterback Tebow truly is.
The southpaw has as many postseason victories as Tony Romo, Matt Ryan, Alex Smith, Jay Cutler, Matt Schaub, T.J. Yates, David Garrard, and everyone's darling Russell Wilson.
It's almost like more goes into being a great quarterback other than simply winning one playoff game. Also, Russell Wilson was a rookie last year and won a playoff game. It's not like he's been in the NFL for years and years.
The fact the author is basically arguing that Tim Tebow deserves an NFL job because he won one playoff game just like these other quarterbacks have won a single playoff game shows me he doesn't really have a firm grasp on quarterbacking in the NFL. It's a very basic and simplistic way of evaluating a quarterback's ability and quite possibly the best way to convince the casual NFL fan that Tebow that he is getting a raw deal from the NFL.
Yet, Tebow is jobless.
And again, articles like this which suggest Tebow wears armor, as well as the inevitable adoring media coverage of his every exploit is exactly why Tebow isn't signed. If the rabid Tebow fans and the media would calm the hell down then maybe Tebow would get another shot. As it stands, no NFL team wants the distraction of their backup quarterback being the topic of every question asked by a reporter. That's the reality. It's the same reality that occurs at everyone's job where there is one co-worker who does his/her job fairly well, but no one likes working with him/her because the other bullshit he/she does or says isn't worth it. He/She is high maintenance basically.
Plus, a successful win-loss record in the regular season and a playoff win.
Boy, the author is really hanging his hat on this isn't he? Mark Sanchez has a successful win-loss record in the regular season and multiple playoff wins. It doesn't make him a better quarterback.
So why not Tebow? Because he doesn't throw "right"?
Well yes, partly. He doesn't throw the ball "right" and he sucks up attention away from the football team because the media adores him and his every move. The article I am writing about right now is part of the reason "why not Tebow." He brings a "C-" quarterbacking skill with the media attention of a teen idol to whatever team dares to draft him, trade for him or sign him.
Or is it the big, bad C-word? Tebow's Christianity--or the buzz that surrounds it--may be be the major factor in the NFL shunning him. C is Tebow's scarlet letter.
I'm sure the author thinks Luke Murton isn't in the majors yet because MLB is shunning him for daring to be a Christian. Such persecution should not stand.
"The whole Tebow thing gets to me," Murton said. "Here you have a winner. He has always won but he doesn't throw "right" they say.
Some expert analysis here.
Murton hasn't experienced any backlash on the level of Tebow, but he does stand out. Each and every at-bat Murton strides to the plate with Christian music blaring. Not your usual walk-up song for today's ball player. "Fans are used to songs that are "pumping up" the player walking to the plate, for instance, "the champ is here...the champ is here", said Murton.
Fans are used to Jadakiss, which of course is short for Jada Knights in Satan's Service.
"I have heard people say that 'you are just trying to get hits." And that is the farthest thing from the truth. At the end of the day, I know I need a reminder of what really matters because I don't want to get caught up in something that eternally means nothing besides the lives we touch."
This is a good point, even though I have no idea what it is supposed to do with Tim Tebow and why he isn't playing quarterback in the NFL right now.
Tebow continues to touch lives too. His foundation is currently working on helping typhoon victims in the Philippines and providing much needed funds and outreach for children with serious illnesses. Yet, Tebow can't touch a football in the NFL.
I don't know if I would consider it a blatant slight any more than Tebow had a few chances to be a quarterback in the NFL and simply couldn't beat the guys ahead of him on the depth chart out for a roster spot. The fact Tebow has so much media and fan baggage certainly doesn't help his case to make an NFL roster though. He receives more attention than he is worth.
The Patriots saw what they were missing out on with Tebow and released him. This was after the Jets kept Tebow on their roster for the entire 2012 season and still didn't choose to keep him around after the season despite Mark Sanchez's was struggles. I think Tebow's one playoff win may have been the peak of his career. NFL teams will give a chance to any player who can help them win games. It's a bottom-line business. The bottom line is Tim Tebow isn't good at being a quarterback to outweigh the circus that surrounds him and this helps to prevent him from getting another shot with an NFL team.
The quarterback carousel in Cleveland continues. Due to more injuries, the Browns have signed Caleb Hanie. They've also brought in Alex Tanney. All this while Brandon Weeden and Jason Campbell are both recovering from concussions. Earlier in the season, Cleveland lost Brian Hoyer to an ACL tear. The situation is a mess. Too bad the Browns still haven't pulled the trigger on the move that makes the most sense.
They have pulled the trigger on the move that makes the most sense. Waiting the season out, drafting a quarterback, and then keeping Hoyer around to be the backup or the starter at the beginning of next season. Boom, done.
Cleveland isn't the only club missing out. While team after team continues to pay inexperienced, below average, losing quarterbacks, Tim Tebow sits and waits.
Tebow waits for his chance to be an inexperienced, below average quarterback who is getting paid? He had the chance last year with the Jets and couldn't beat out Mark Sanchez for the job. Tebow hasn't started an NFL game at quarterback since the 2011 playoffs. Yes, he has an 8-6 career record so he's a "winning" quarterback, but Mark Sanchez has a 33-29 record as a quarterback so he's a "winner" too. There's more to being a good quarterback than just looking at the quarterback's record and deciding he's a "winner."
He is waiting, but he's not sitting around. Tebow is doing what he always does: visiting with and lifting the spirits of sick kids, raising money and awareness for charities,
This is irrelevant. Yes, Tim Tebow is a great guy who does many wonderful things. This doesn't make him a great quarterback. I know many, many good people who do great things for other people, but they are also not very good NFL quarterbacks.
and training just in case someone in the NFL ever awakens from their media induced, peer pressured slumber.
Because we all know NFL teams only do what the media wants them to do. NFL teams will pass up chances to win games just to appease the media. Sure, that's what happens.
I can't help but chuckle at this guy writing about how the media has induced a peer pressure slumber. The media is who has propped Tebow up since he was playing college football at Florida. They have kept the myth of Tebow alive and given a forum to the rabid Tebow fans, while creating more Tebow fans. The idea this writer tries to sell us that the media is preventing Tebow from being an NFL starter is just hilarious. If Tebow wasn't such a good guy then the media would have hounded Tebow out of the NFL permanently by calling him a bust and tearing him down without a debate on Tebow's leadership skills. It's also ironic the writer makes this statement because the media's rabid fascination with Tebow is (in my opinion) a reason he doesn't have an NFL job right now. The media would love for Tebow to play for an NFL team, simply so they could write about Tebow. But yeah, the media is the one holding him down, I believe that.
Along with that less than stellar bunch of signal callers in
Cleveland, the league is chock full of quarterbacks with less playoff
wins than Tebow.
Let's discuss the playoff win, shall we? The Broncos played a Steelers team in Denver that was missing their starting safety, starting running back, as well as had their starting quarterback injured. Ben Roethlisberger could barely move around in the pocket in that game due to an ankle injury. These aren't excuses, but merely facts that the Steelers were playing a road game with their best player's best attribute being diminished by an injury. It was a really good win for the Broncos in overtime and Tebow was 10-21 for 316 yards, but it also was a game where the Steelers weren't playing very well at that point in the season.
It's always funny how the author doesn't mention the very next playoff game. It doesn't fit his narrative that shows Tebow as a winner. Tebow went 9-26 (which isn't bad if this were baseball) for 136 yards against the Patriots the very next week. Tebow was completely overmatched in that game by the Patriots defense. This game never gets mentioned when discussing Tebow whether is a winner in the playoffs.
First, the quarterbacks with fewer postseason victories than the former Bronco and Jet:
Yes, the author is really doing this. He's saying that Tebow needs a job in the NFL because he has one playoff victory, then makes a list of other quarterbacks who don't have as many playoff victories as if this is a comparison that should make the reader believe Tebow isn't getting a fair shot. Of course the list sucks and is as misleading as possible in an effort to make it look like many other quarterbacks have gotten a shot to win a playoff game and couldn't succeed in the way Tebow did. I don't think Tebow would approve of the way the author misleads his readers. The author makes his list as long as possible to make the conspiracy to keep Tebow out of the NFL as vast as possible. There are quite a few quarterbacks who are injured reserve on this list as well. I'm going to skip the quarterbacks who have never even appeared in a playoff game, thereby not ever having the chance to show he can win one.
Matt Barkley
He's a rookie quarterback. Shouldn't be on the list.
Tyler Bray
Rookie quarterback.
Jimmy Clausen
He was released and zero teams claimed him, hence nobody wanted him, so he ended up back on the Panthers IR list. Clausen was unwanted, just like Tebow.
Auston Davis
It's spelled "Austin Davis."
Zac Dysert
Rookie quarterback.
Mike Glennon
Rookie quarterback.
EJ Manuel
Rookie quarterback.
Matt McGloin
Rookie quarterback.
Ryan Nassib
Rookie quarterback.
Certainly, there are some young guys on that list that clearly have a bright future and are more talented quarterbacks than Tebow (like Andrew Luck, Cam Newton, Matthew Stafford, Robert Griffin, III),
Yes, there are only four quarterbacks in the NFL more talented than Tebow on that list of quarterbacks who haven't won a playoff game. I could list at least 30 quarterbacks on that list who are more talented than Tim Tebow at playing quarterback.
but for every Newton and Luck, there are multiple Renfrees, Stanzis, and Tuels. Can these clubs really say they are better off with these names than they would be with Tebow?
Considering these quarterbacks are all backups or third-string quarterbacks, then yes, these teams can say they are better off with these names than they would be with Tebow. Tebow brings too much scrutiny and attention for a third-string quarterback.
Along with that list of those who have not had any playoff success, Tebow is also on par with some big names when it comes to playoff wins.
This is an interesting little fact that Tebow has one playoff win like some current NFL starters, but this doesn't mean Tebow is a better quarterback than these NFL starters. It just means Tebow won a playoff game. He has a whole entire other resume, including another playoff game he participated in, that tells us what kind of quarterback Tebow truly is.
The southpaw has as many postseason victories as Tony Romo, Matt Ryan, Alex Smith, Jay Cutler, Matt Schaub, T.J. Yates, David Garrard, and everyone's darling Russell Wilson.
It's almost like more goes into being a great quarterback other than simply winning one playoff game. Also, Russell Wilson was a rookie last year and won a playoff game. It's not like he's been in the NFL for years and years.
The fact the author is basically arguing that Tim Tebow deserves an NFL job because he won one playoff game just like these other quarterbacks have won a single playoff game shows me he doesn't really have a firm grasp on quarterbacking in the NFL. It's a very basic and simplistic way of evaluating a quarterback's ability and quite possibly the best way to convince the casual NFL fan that Tebow that he is getting a raw deal from the NFL.
Yet, Tebow is jobless.
It's almost like winning one playoff game doesn't mean Tebow is a great quarterback. Also, I believe if Tebow was just a normal quarterback without a rabid following of fans that quote his volunteer and other good-guy activities without prompt from anyone at every opportunity then he would absolutely have an NFL job. The media attention (from the media the author seems to think doesn't like Tebow or wants to see him fail) is not worth the skills (or lack thereof) that Tebow brings to the team. Tebow is not good enough to justify the hype that will surround him.
While the Browns have just signed Hanie who has for his career thrown
for only three touchdowns while being intercepted ten times and Tanney
who has never attempted a pass in the NFL, Tebow is unsigned.
This, despite 17 touchdowns and only nine picks, not to mention 989
rushing yards and 12 rushing touchdowns.
And again, articles like this which suggest Tebow wears armor, as well as the inevitable adoring media coverage of his every exploit is exactly why Tebow isn't signed. If the rabid Tebow fans and the media would calm the hell down then maybe Tebow would get another shot. As it stands, no NFL team wants the distraction of their backup quarterback being the topic of every question asked by a reporter. That's the reality. It's the same reality that occurs at everyone's job where there is one co-worker who does his/her job fairly well, but no one likes working with him/her because the other bullshit he/she does or says isn't worth it. He/She is high maintenance basically.
Plus, a successful win-loss record in the regular season and a playoff win.
Boy, the author is really hanging his hat on this isn't he? Mark Sanchez has a successful win-loss record in the regular season and multiple playoff wins. It doesn't make him a better quarterback.
So why not Tebow? Because he doesn't throw "right"?
Well yes, partly. He doesn't throw the ball "right" and he sucks up attention away from the football team because the media adores him and his every move. The article I am writing about right now is part of the reason "why not Tebow." He brings a "C-" quarterbacking skill with the media attention of a teen idol to whatever team dares to draft him, trade for him or sign him.
Or is it the big, bad C-word? Tebow's Christianity--or the buzz that surrounds it--may be be the major factor in the NFL shunning him. C is Tebow's scarlet letter.
Okay, make him a martyr. That will convince everyone that Tebow should be a quarterback in the NFL. It's not that Tebow is a Christian because other NFL players are devout Christians and the NFL doesn't shun them. Christian Ponder is a devout Christian, as is everyone's darling Russell Wilson, Prince Amukamara, Aaron Rodgers, Kurt Warner, Reggie White and Thomas Davis. The idea that Tim Tebow is being shunned for being a Christian is absolutely ridiculous to me. Making him a martyr is much more fun than acknowledging the rabid Tebow fans' impact on his not having a job in the NFL. It's easier to point the finger at others' actions than it is to look at your actions.
Other Christian athletes are taking notice. Luke Murton has played five
years of professional baseball. He finished up this year with the Sioux
City Explorers after spending more than four seasons with the New York
Yankees organization. Like Tebow, he is working hard every day to
improve as a player. Also, like Tebow, Murton makes no apologies for his
faith.
Neither do other professional athletes and other professional athletes also publicize their faith.
"I want my life to be a light to the world," Murton told Breitbart
Sports. "I want people to look at me and see something different. And
not because I am special but because hopefully that will bring more
people to Christ. Every Christian should be a missionary in the sense
wherever you work that is your mission field. We need to be intentional
about bringing others to Christ because we better than anyone know how
much we need Christ.
I'm sure the author thinks Luke Murton isn't in the majors yet because MLB is shunning him for daring to be a Christian. Such persecution should not stand.
"The whole Tebow thing gets to me," Murton said. "Here you have a winner. He has always won but he doesn't throw "right" they say.
Some expert analysis here.
Murton hasn't experienced any backlash on the level of Tebow, but he does stand out. Each and every at-bat Murton strides to the plate with Christian music blaring. Not your usual walk-up song for today's ball player. "Fans are used to songs that are "pumping up" the player walking to the plate, for instance, "the champ is here...the champ is here", said Murton.
Fans are used to Jadakiss, which of course is short for Jada Knights in Satan's Service.
"I have heard people say that 'you are just trying to get hits." And that is the farthest thing from the truth. At the end of the day, I know I need a reminder of what really matters because I don't want to get caught up in something that eternally means nothing besides the lives we touch."
This is a good point, even though I have no idea what it is supposed to do with Tim Tebow and why he isn't playing quarterback in the NFL right now.
Tebow continues to touch lives too. His foundation is currently working on helping typhoon victims in the Philippines and providing much needed funds and outreach for children with serious illnesses. Yet, Tebow can't touch a football in the NFL.
I see what you did there. Cleverness aside, possibly Tebow is better off touching lives outside of football since he seems to be able to make a difference through his foundation. The fact Tebow is a great person has zero to do with whether he should be an NFL quarterback or not. I can't emphasize this enough, though I have tried.
Murton knows what Tebow knows. That's probably why Tebow can handle this
blatant slight with such class and that patented Tebow smile.
I don't know if I would consider it a blatant slight any more than Tebow had a few chances to be a quarterback in the NFL and simply couldn't beat the guys ahead of him on the depth chart out for a roster spot. The fact Tebow has so much media and fan baggage certainly doesn't help his case to make an NFL roster though. He receives more attention than he is worth.
So, until an NFL team wises up and issues some pads to #15, he'll be just fine wearing the armor of Jesus.
I mean...this...it's part of the problem. Not the Christianity aspect of Tebow, but the aspect where some of his fans write things like this. It's very off-putting and even a little fake. I call it fake because if the author has to tell us how great Tebow is doing without the NFL then that tells me Tebow isn't okay without being in the NFL. The author doth protest too much basically. If the author thinks Tebow doesn't give a shit about the NFL then why does he write columns saying Tebow is being shunned and why does Tebow admit he wants to play in the NFL again? Obviously Tebow is fine not playing in the NFL, but I'm not sure he's completely fine with it. I know Kevin Scholla isn't okay with it.
The Bible talks about the need to "focus on what is eternal and not
seen." Tebow is doing his part. We wait and watch to find out if any
team ever focuses and finally sees what they're missing out on.
The Patriots saw what they were missing out on with Tebow and released him. This was after the Jets kept Tebow on their roster for the entire 2012 season and still didn't choose to keep him around after the season despite Mark Sanchez's was struggles. I think Tebow's one playoff win may have been the peak of his career. NFL teams will give a chance to any player who can help them win games. It's a bottom-line business. The bottom line is Tim Tebow isn't good at being a quarterback to outweigh the circus that surrounds him and this helps to prevent him from getting another shot with an NFL team.
Tuesday, November 26, 2013
4 comments MMQB Review: It Turns Out All the Teams Peter King Had in the NFL Playoffs After Week 3 May Not Make the Playoffs After All Edition
Peter King was surprised last week that Ruby Tuesday's did not have a great local beer selection, discussed the JFK assassination (because this is a football column and all), as well as decided that the Chiefs have a bunch of flaws that no one noticed prior to them losing to the Broncos. Losing a game does that I guess. Everything that was right about the team is suddenly wrong. Peter focused on the Chiefs lack of pass rush against the Broncos, even though the Chiefs had struggled to rush the passer the previous two games and Peter wasn't concerned about this at the time. Mostly, last week's MMQB was about Ruby Tuesday's lack of beer selection though. This week it may shock you to learn that Peter talks about the Patriots-Broncos game (Manning v. Brady! Fumbles v. less than 100 passing yards passing by the fourth quarter! Only on NBC!), decides the Colts are in free-fall (as always, a loss completely changes Peter's perspective on a team...just like last week with the Chiefs), and even though there is no travel note, he uses the word "precocious" yet again when talking about an adult male. I think it's weird.
Well, if you went to bed at halftime, when Denver led New England 24-0, you missed:
New England stop fumbling the ball and Peyton Manning struggling to throw the football into the wind until he absolutely had to throw the football into the wind to tie the game?
On the 11-year anniversary of the ill-fated Marty Mornhinweg deferral to start overtime (Lions-Bears, Champaign, Ill.; for more details, that is why Google and Bing were invented,
I greatly dislike it when Peter King references an event and then tells his readers to Google or Bing it. He's an asshat. For more details on what that is, Peter should Google it.
but suffice to say it did not end well for coach Mornhinweg),
WELL NOW I AM COMPLETELY IN THE DARK ON WHAT HAPPENED IN THAT GAME. DID MORNHINWEG'S TEAM WIN THE GAME? I CAN'T TELL FROM THE HINT YOU JUST DROPPED!
Bill Belichick chose to give Manning the ball to start overtime. “We were like, ‘Defer? Take the wind?’ Even the captains didn’t know,” said Patriots defensive captain Devin McCourty.
Next time the captains may want to ask this question prior to walking out to midfield for the overtime coin toss. I wonder what would happen if the Patriots took 20 minutes to decide if they took the wind or deferred? Could the officials force the Patriots to make a decision? Peter King should Bing the answer to this and get back to me.
The name “Peter” (no relation) playing a huge role in the outcome.
Cutesy of you to say "no relation," Peter. Very precocious of you.
Let’s talk about that muff.
Sounds like Peter's being using the Google machine to look up more than the answer to football-related questions and he is leaning towards Googling more NSFW content now that he has artistic freedom at THE MMQB.
It says so much about the game, and about why it turned the way it did
Yes, the turnover in overtime that put the Patriots in immediate field goal range to win the game did have a lot to do with the game turning out like it did. This is analysis, people. Step back and let Peter do his work.
One bit of weirdness after another. “It was a significant wind,” said Belichick in explaining his call. Okay, but handing the ball to Manning? No way Belichick would have done this under the old overtime rules. Before 2012, any score in overtime would end the game. Starting last year, each team would possess the ball at least once in overtime, unless there was a touchdown or safety on the first possession. Upon the second possession, the game would be in sudden death. The specter of Manning driving, say, 40 yards to the winning field goal was far, far different than the specter of Manning driving 75 yards to the winning touchdown.
I just want to throw it out there that "Specter of Manning" would be a good name for a band and "It was a Significant Wind" would be a great name for this band's first power ballad...because of course Specter of Manning would be an 80's band that rocked hard but also weren't afraid to show their gentle side.
“Just a normal punt play,” Ebner said.
But not so normal.
The drama builds...
Back for Denver was Wes Welker, a sure-handed returner. Sure-handed, yes. But not the normal guy back there. The Broncos yanked Trindon Holliday, the normal (and dangerous) return man, because he’d fumbled earlier, and Welker, who’d returned but four punts all season, awaited.
You like how Peter is providing built-in excuses for Welker not handling this punt return well and telling his teammates to get out of the way early enough? Peter is all like, "Well yeah, but Welker doesn't normally handle punts and he hasn't handled but four punts all season, so there's no reason to expect him to be competent enough to handle a punt return for the Broncos."
It's not like Welker hasn't practiced returning punts or hasn't returned 245 punts in his NFL career. Yeah, there's no reason to expect him to not screw up. I guess Welker needed 300 punt returns in his career for Peter to feel good about him returning a punt in this situation.
“I’ve got to get to him earlier, and get those guys out of the way if I’m not going to make the catch,” said Welker.
Yes, you do.
Carter said, “I was hoping it was something else, not the ball.”
Maybe it was something else falling from the sky hitting Tony Carter in the leg. That would be much better and safer if it was space debris or just something else falling out of the sky and not a football. Realistically, what else was Tony Carter hoping had hit his leg? I really need to know the answer.
“At halftime,” said Ebner, “we knew it was a 60-minute game.
Actually, at halftime it was a 30 minute game at that point. Well, it was really a 42 minute game, but that's beside the point since no one had an idea at halftime overtime would occur.
My two takeaways from this game:
1. I will take Tom Brady in a weather game over Peyton Manning. Without question. Brady’s arm is better.
Does Peter mean a "bad" weather game? Because every game has weather.
2. We’ve spent a lot of time ripping New England’s player-acquisition process in the last few years.
(Bengoodfella looks around him confused) What's this "we" shit? I haven't ripped the player-acquisition process of the Patriots. Don't "we" your audience when it turns out you personally were wrong about something.
New England beat a very good team Sunday night, and it wasn’t just Brady that did it. It took a village.
Just like every Patriots win over another NFL team. It takes more than one player to win the game.
Of course the 2014 Denver-New England game, it happens, would be in Foxboro.
If he’s still around next season at 38, Manning would be playing his 13th career game in Foxboro, and it would be the 10th time in 12 seasons he has competed against Brady in the town halfway between Boston and Providence (not including 2008, when Brady was hurt, and 2011, when Manning was out).
I can't get enough of this quarterback matchup that isn't really a matchup between two quarterbacks but is really a matchup between two NFL teams. I hope the 2014 version of the Broncos-Patriots game gets hyped up even more. I feel like there wasn't quite enough hype around this year's game.
I'm sure Gregg Easterbrook thinks the "Peyton Paradox" is back now that the Broncos have lost a big game.
Indianapolis is a shell of the team it was in September.
The Colts have had to continuously come back in the second half over the past couple of weeks to win games. It simply wasn't sustainable.
I didn’t watch much of their game (my NBC duties precluded it), but I keep seeing Andrew Luck trying to force things.
"I know nothing about what really happened in this game, but let me guess as to what happened based on reading the statistics for the game and watching some highlights."
He’s doing so with so many of his important players gone for the season—guard Donald Thomas (the best offensive lineman on the team), wideout Reggie Wayne, tight end Dwayne Allen—that you wonder if Indianapolis will be able to hold off the flawed Titans and rebound for the playoffs.
Other young quarterbacks struggle to win games without his best players around him and that quarterback just isn't a winner and has been exposed by the NFL (umm...Colin Kaepernick), but when Andrew Luck starts to struggle it's because he just doesn't have enough healthy weapons around him to be a winner. I think I got it. The narrative changes depending on the quarterback.
Then, on Sunday, Indy’s best cornerback, Vontae Davis, went down with a groin injury, and he may miss some time. We gotta figure a way to get off the field. Well, that’s pretty tough to do when your best secondary player, the man whose job it is to get you off the field, is standing on the sidelines.
It's sad to hear the Colts are the only team in the NFL to have lost one of their best defensive players. It would be nice if Peter would make excuses for other NFL teams who suffer injuries to key players. Since Ryan Grigson is such a genius GM I'm surprised he doesn't have depth at the cornerback position to withstand an injury. Maybe he could trade this year's first round pic---well, nevermind, that pick has already been spent.
I'm not trying to be snide or critical of the Colts, but Peter hasn't ever mentioned how the Colts are a shell of a team at all this year prior to this MMQB. He's talked about how the Colts keep coming back and how Andrew Luck plays well in the second half of games, but then the Colts lose a game, and all of a sudden they are a shell of the team they were and may not hold off the flawed Titans (if the Colts do lose a playoff spot to the Titans, wouldn't this mean the Colts were flawed too?) for a playoff spot. He bases everything he says about the Colts on the fact they lost this week. When the Colts are winning, they aren't a bad team, but now they lose a game and all of a sudden this is a team who is a shell of the team they were in September. Peter did this last week with the Chiefs. It's fine to believe the Chiefs and Colts are flawed, but don't base this opinion solely on the fact they just lost football games. Try to have some foresight. The fact the Colts kept having to come back in games is a sign their success may not have been sustainable. I'm sure if the Colts win this upcoming weekend then Peter will jump right back on the bandwagon.
Sunday was the seventh straight game the Colts have trailed in the first half. Two of the last three have been downright embarrassing.
Six straight games the Colts have trailed in the first half, but because the Colts were able to come back in a few of these games Peter only noted how the Colts were down early as evidence of how clutch Andrew Luck and the Colts are when coming from behind.
With road games at Cincinnati and Kansas City remaining in the last five weeks, it’s fair to say if they can’t beat the Titans at home, their once rock-solid playoff hopes are in jeopardy.
These "rock-solid" playoff hopes were probably rock-solid back in Week 3 of this season when Peter was deciding which teams were and were not going to make the playoffs. Not that Week 3 is too early to make any postseason pronouncements of course.
My quick hit on a fun weekend of football: There’s no unbeatable team.
Every NFL team can be beaten. These are the types of insights a person reads MMQB for.
Now that Seattle has lost two of its top three corners for the next month—Brandon Browner to injury, Walter Thurmond (according to Ian Rapoport of NFL Network) to a four-game substance-abuse suspension—even the 10-1 Seahawks might be vulnerable to a productive passing team.
They should have lost to Tampa Bay and Carolina already, so it's obvious that Seattle isn't unbeatable. Plus, Peter King noted last week the Seahawks aren't the same team when playing on the road.
“The parity is unbelievable,” San Diego quarterback Philip Rivers told me after the Chargers—who’d lost three in a row before Sunday—put up 41 on the formerly impenetrable Chiefs. At Arrowhead.
This is the same Chiefs team that had a great pass rush until they lost a game, at which point Peter King noticed the Chiefs didn't really have a great pass rush over their last three games.
The Chargers are 5-6. There are six of those 5-6 teams in the AFC, and the one that wins the tiebreaker currently, Tennessee, is the sixth playoff seed at the moment. Tennessee, Pittsburgh, Baltimore, San Diego, the Jets, Miami … With the exception of the Jets, who are playing poorly, you can’t count one of those teams out.
It's probably stupid to count the Jets out too. You never know.
That’s this year’s NFL. I ask again: Can you tell me with conviction right now that San Francisco is better than Arizona? That’s an unthinkable question a month ago. It’s a legitimate one today.
Well, it wasn't unthinkable. I'm not expert and I predicted the Cardinals would be 8-8 this year and the 49ers would be 11-5, while also stating that probably under-predicts (I just made that word up) the Cardinals season record. The 49ers started a quarterback who had limited experience starting in the NFL and teams would have all offseason to scout him, while the Cardinals had no quarterback last year and were bound to improve with a somewhat competent quarterback slinging the ball around for them.
Fine Fifteen
1. Seattle (10-1). Tough call for No. 1. Seattle, New England, Carolina, Denver and New Orleans in contention.
In theory, every NFL team is in contention for the #1 spot since they are all eligible to be placed in this spot.
Seattle will need Byron Maxwell, a third-year dime back from Clemson, to step up in the next four weeks. No problem! ’Hawks just have Drew Brees, Colin Kaepernick, Eli Manning and Carson Palmer on the horizon.
Well, two of those quarterbacks haven't struck a lot of fear in defenses this year.
4. New Orleans (9-2). No team has it tougher over 21 December days starting next Monday: at 10-1 Seattle, 7-3 Carolina at home, at 5-6 St. Louis, at 7-3 Carolina.
The Saints only have it tough because the NFL has it out for them. I'm sure the Saints can work up a complex over the next four weeks where no one likes them and is treating them unfairly, which is why they play teams over the next four weeks who are 29-13. No one believes in the Saints and they are being unfairly persecuted!
6. San Francisco (6-4). Talk about a lucky break. When Seattle travels to Candlestick for a game the Niners have to have in two weeks, the Seahawks will be without their second and third corners, and, presumably, San Francisco will have Michael Crabtree back.
Yes, it is very fortunate that the 49ers are getting their best receiver who has missed the entirety of this season back at some point during the season. Those lucky 49ers. How fortunate are they that they didn't have their best receiver all season?
9. Indianapolis (7-4). Talked to an influential Colts guy a few days ago.
He talked to Andrew Luck or Chuck Pagano. I feel like this is obvious.
That’s the tight end who was one of the best rookies in football last year, drafted to pair with Coby Fleener in two-tight-end sets and star individually. Bruising blocker and sure-handed receiver. That, plus the loss of Reggie Wayne, is killing this offense.
Very likely, and yet I feel like these same excuses aren't being used to explain Colin Kaepernick's struggles. Not that Andrew Luck is really struggling all that much right now.
Offensive Players of the Week
Tom Brady, quarterback, New England. The wind became a prominent part of last night’s game when the Patriots chose to defend in overtime, but Brady looked as if he was playing in a light breeze in the Patriots’ incredible second-half and overtime comeback. Brady managed a respectable 6.9 yards per passing attempt despite the elements (4.2 for Manning), and had 274 of his 344 yards after the half.
Not a snarky comment, but Manning's reduced arm strength really showed last night with some of his passes into the wind. A few of his throws weren't accurate up to his standards and seemed to wobble a bit more than usual.
Goat of the Week
Matthew Stafford, quarterback, Detroit. Four interceptions against the Bucs, the third with the Lions driving for a potential 11-point lead. Detroit lost to the previously 2-8 Bucs. A bad day for the young gunslinger.
But I thought that comeback against the Cowboys that ended with a fake spike and dive into the end zone led to a whole new Matthew Stafford? I'm shocked Matthew Stafford is still the same old quarterback even after having that career-defining play.
“Do you think I sit around all day looking at magazines, or what? I don’t even know what you’re talking about. I haven’t seen a newspaper today. I don’t know what’s happening in the world.”
—Alabama coach Nick Saban, asked Thursday what he thought of the new Sports Illustrated cover, with his own quarterback, A.J. McCarron, on it.
I'm not sure that's healthy.
“I personally feel like the flag went down for a reason, and it looked like a foul to me.”
—Rams coach Jeff Fisher, with the last word on the ill-fated picked-up flag on the last play of the Panthers-Patriots game last Monday night.
I think it looked like a flag to me too and should not have been picked up. Of course I don't care what Jeff "8-8" Fisher thinks. He's just mad the NFC team won and that means the Rams are that much closer to not making the playoffs where he could better justify the high salary the Rams are paying him. I know Fisher is on the Competition Committee and I also know he's overrated as a coach, but his media cronies like Peter King protect him from any real criticism and won't do any real criticism themselves. That's my basic issue with Jeff Fisher and now I'm way off the topic at hand.
In Kaepernick’s 10 starts last year, Michael Crabtree, Mario Manningham and Randy Moss totaled 94 catches, 1,313 yards and seven touchdowns.
In Kaepernick’s 10 starts this year, Crabtree hasn’t played, Manningham has played two games, and Moss is off the team. Their Niner totals this year: four catches, 38 yards.
In other words, it’s Anquan Boldin—new to Kaepernick this year—
Now Peter, let's not make excuses. You told us during 49ers training camp and after Boldin's monster Week 1 performance that he and Kaepernick were quickly on the same page. Don't throw this "new to Kaepernick" excuse out there now. You've already stated that he and Kaepernick got on the same page quickly and it's obvious they did after Boldin's performance in Week 1.
Then Peter talks about JFK's assassination in terms that Hugh Millen was born three hours before JFK was assassinated. The best JFK ever did for his popularity was get killed. He didn't have time to disappoint anyone and he's a legend in the minds of many. It's the principle behind the best thing Janis Joplin, Jimi Hendrix and Kurt Cobain did was die before the world got enough of them. I can see a bloated Janis Joplin doing an entire album of depressing duets with Stevie Nicks and Hendrix having a comeback album featuring the new hit single sung by Adam Levine.
John F. Kennedy was a huge football fan, and he spent the last Sunday of his life, in part, watching the game of the week in the National Football League: the 8-1 Packers (winners of two straight NFL titles) and the 8-1 Bears, live from Wrigley Field on Nov. 17, 1963.
Make this Kennedy stuff stop. It feels like it is going on two weeks of nothing but a discussion of JFK. He's dead and it is a sad thing. Peter seemingly has a new obsession. I wonder how Brett Favre feels about this.
So now you know the answer to the JFK Trivia Contest: What was the last game this football-mad president ever watched?
(Bangs head on the desk)
“I MUST call Bull—- on da slide! #scaredycat!!’’
—@SamuelLJackson, Falcons fan and movie star, after watching quarterback Matt Ryan slide at the Saints’ 5-yard-line on 3rd-and-goal instead of trying to score a touchdown. Atlanta settled for a field goal. Jackson did not settle for the field goal, however.
Matty Icccccccccccccccccccce doesn't care to get hit hard even when he doesn't have a big contract to play for.
Ten Things I Think I Think
1. I think this is what I liked about Week 12:
b. Kyle Long interrupting his mother, Diane, with a kiss on the cheek while she prepared for a FOX interview before the Rams-Bears game.
How precocious of Kyle Long.
c. Cam Jordan, the precocious Saints defensive end, returning from a mini-slump to sack Matt Ryan twice, share in a third sack and knock him down another time.
Peter loves to use the word "precocious" to describe a grown man. I don't understand why he does this, but he does, and it is never not annoying to me. Precocious means a person exhibits unusually mature qualities at such an early age. Cam Jordan is 24 years old and has 9.5 sacks. He isn't precocious. Peter needs to stop using this word in an effort to project child-like qualities on adults. Peter is obsessed with making grown men seem like they are children.
i. Excuse me for praising Miami GM Jeff Ireland—that is quite out of fashion these days—
Because there are quite a few things that don't deserve praise. Don't act like Ireland is being criticized needlessly.
but the value of getting pass rusher Olivier Vernon with the 72nd pick of the 2012 draft is pretty good. Vernon is a big help to Cameron Wake, giving offensive coordinators another pass-rushing headache when they play Miami.
Great job. Jeff Ireland did his job well and for that he deserves praise. You aren't a rebel for acknowledging Ireland made a draft pick that seems to be playing well.
o. Zac Stacy, proving the Rams were lucky Steven Jackson walked. Hope he’s okay after leaving with a head injury.
Zac Stacy was drafted by the Rams and the Rams are really good at drafting! You should read this article Peter wrote in May about how good the Rams are at drafting. They are on the right track to becoming a really successful team under Jeff Fisher. It's a rebuilding process though, so give Fisher another year or two after this year once he decides Sam Bradford isn't his quarterback of the future, at which point Fisher will be buying himself more time by pointing out Rams fans shouldn't expect immediate success with a new quarterback at the helm.
p. The more I see Mike Glennon, the more I like him.
His precociousness is off the charts.
t. Just as Joe Buck says Tony Romo has to step up in the fourth quarter, less than four minutes left in a 21-all tie at the Meadowlands, Romo lofts a perfect back-shoulder 18-yard third-down conversion on Antrel Rolle to keep the Dallas drive going.
But this ruins the narrative that Tony Romo is a choker when it counts.
2. I think this is what I didn’t like about Week 12:
a. Ref Ron Winter in the Saints-Falcons game missing both a facemask and blow to the head call on Akiem Hicks against Matt Ryan.
(Saints fans everywhere) "See, this is just further proof the NFL is against our team! The officials intentionally miss a call that goes again---oh wait, this call went in favor of the Saints? Well, why does Peter King have to report on things that occur during a football game with such a slant against the Saints? He did this when reporting on the bounty scandal too. He reported facts, rather than just not say anything bad about the Saints. It's us against the world!"
g. You’re not supposed to boot a field goal into the helmet of a lineman on your own team, Graham Gano.
The snap was low and I'm pretty sure he wasn't intentionally trying to hit the helmet of one of his linemen.
k. Luke Kuechly’s a lucky man. Two weeks in a row now.
Kuechly was lucky against the Patriots, but the announcers and Mike Pereira eventually agreed that Kuechly didn't lead with his helmet in the end zone when hitting a Dolphins player. I doubt Peter watched anything but the highlights as he prepared for Brady and Manning to face off once again, so I'm not sure what I should expect from him.
One other comment about defensive players leading with their head...Kuechly went up in the air to hit the Dolphins receiver and force him to drop the ball. I don't think he led with his head nor made contact with the receiver's head, but how is the defensive player expected to adjust in mid-air to a receiver jumping or making a move to catch the football? I get a defensive player isn't expected to launch himself at an offensive player, but there are times a defensive player could be leading with his shoulder and then the offensive player moves to where the defensive player contacts the head. I get the reason for the rule and I support it, but sometimes I think defensive players have a disadvantage because they are expected to adjust mid-air or in a split second to a move of the body the offensive player might make that could be the difference in a clean hit and a penalty.
l. Terrible pick thrown by Alex Smith.
Impossible. He's a winner and the perfect game manager.
6. I think Pete Carroll might need to redouble his efforts to warn players about substances they can’t put in their bodies, with Walter Thurmond blowing the chance of a lifetime by accepting a four-game suspension for violating the league’s substance-abuse policy, according to NFL Network’s Ian Rapoport. He’s the third Seattle defensive back to get similarly whacked in 12 months, and this will put tremendous pressure now on Richard Sherman to be really good over the next four weeks.
I wonder if we will get a repeat of last year's "Boy the Seahawks are really screwed without Sherman and Browner" talk from Peter King. Last year we got this talk from Peter and it turned out the Seahawks weren't screwed at all.
7. I think Darnell Dockett is the winner of the NFL’s Most Underrated Interview award.
I think this isn't a real award and you just made it up as an excuse to mention that Darnell Dockett is a good interview, so you decided to mention this in the most bizarre way possible.
8. I think under the category of “Contracts They’d Love To Have Back,” I give you Cortland Finnegan, the 108th- and lowest-rated cornerback in the NFL after 11 weeks, according to ProFootballFocus.com. The Rams paid him $50 million over five years in 2012, and place him on injured-reserve Saturday … after he’d allowed 76.5 percent of the passes to his men to be complete, and allowed opposing quarterbacks a 136.0 rating on passes thrown in his area.
It's absolutely impossible the Rams would want this contract back because this is assuming the Rams have made a mistake and with the effortlessly reliable leadership of Kevin Demoff and steady hand of Jeff Fisher leading the Rams ship they won't make a mistake. So the Rams wanting a contract back would assume the team has made a mistake and the Rams don't ever make mistakes. Ever.
By the way, where was this excellent Rams rushing attack at when Sam Bradford was the team's quarterback? Poor guy gets hurt and the Rams start running the ball well.
10. I think these are my non-NFL thoughts of the week:
b. I am an incredible know-nothing about the NBA, but there’s a chance I knew what I was talking about when I said the Nets were dumb for thinking you could win an NBA title with an Old Timers team.
I always dislike it when Peter writes that we need to discount his opinion on a topic and then the very next statement consists of Peter wanting us to take his opinion on that very same topic seriously.
d. The Yankees got better by signing Brian McCann. No doubt about it. Great ballpark for him. But …
e.
But this thought should be a continuation of "d" since "e" addresses the same topic discussed in "d" and "e" is in fact just a continuation of the exact same thought began in "d"?
I know we’re not supposed to care about batting average anymore, but he has hit .242 over the past two years. RBI high over the last four years: 77. I would have liked the signing a lot more in 2009 than 2014.
Three things:
1. The signing occurred in 2013.
2. And also, McCann was very, very injured during the 2012 season to the point he couldn't swing a bat and was benched during the idiotic one game Wild Card playoff. McCann missed the first month of the 2013 season due to surgery on this injured shoulder. So that had an effect on his batting average.
3. Any idiot would have liked this signing more four years ago. McCann is a catcher and would have been 25 years old instead of 29 years old in 2009. This is a pretty obvious statement. Though if McCann signed a five year contract in 2009 then his last two seasons that Peter doesn't seem to care for would have come while he was earning $34 million and not $23.5 million for these two years. So I'm not sure Peter would have liked McCann's production at $17 million per year.
j. Coffeenerdness: There is not much better in life early on a Sunday morning than the smell of Italian roast coffee wafting through the home.
I feel like Peter forces his wife to make the coffee before he wakes up. It seems to me like he would berate her if he is out of the shower and there is no fresh coffee available.
"If I wanted to be treated like I lived at a Holiday Inn where they don't make coffee before 6am then I would have stayed at a Holiday Inn last night. Make my coffee and put on a smile about doing it!"
k. Beernerdness: Tried perhaps my last pumpkin brew for the year (they start to disappear in favor of winter ales now), the River Horse Hipp-o-Lantern Pumpkin Ale from Ewing, N.J., the other night. Not enough pumpkin nose or taste for me. A little too alcohol-laden at 8.7 percent.
There's no such thing as an alcoholic drink that is too alcohol-laden. I haven't had the Hipp-o-Lantern Pumpkin Ale in a couple of years, but I will be taking a tour of this brewery in Ewing, N.J. on Saturday, so I will see if Peter is just being a wimp about the alcohol content or just being a beer snob. Nearly every River Horse beer I have ever had has been great, even the milk stout beer wasn't bad, and I tend to stay away from milk stout beer.
l. Best TV show I saw (and I didn’t see many) on the JFK anniversary: Tom Brokaw’s two-hour special Friday night with so many of the vital characters in the story. The shoe-store manager who followed Oswald into the theater where he was captured, one of the two cops who nabbed Oswald, the guy who drove Oswald to work (with his gun disguised as curtain rods) on the fateful day, the doctor who tended to Kennedy when he was wheeled into the operating room at Parkland Hospital. Great work.
What about the guy on the street who saw Oswald at a restaurant the night before? What did he have to say? What about the girl whose mom met JFK 24 hours to the minute he was killed in Dallas? Can we interview her?
San Francisco 23, Washington 20. This will be a better game than people think, and not just because the Niners have to travel.
It gets very wearisome to have to hear a sportswriter tell me what everyone else is thinking simply so he/she can disprove this imaginary group-thinking as not being true.
The Adieu Haiku
Dan Dierdorf rode his
bike to the Hall as a kid.
Forever Canton.
Very precocious of Dierdorf to ride his bike to the Hall of Fame as a child.
Well, if you went to bed at halftime, when Denver led New England 24-0, you missed:
New England stop fumbling the ball and Peyton Manning struggling to throw the football into the wind until he absolutely had to throw the football into the wind to tie the game?
On the 11-year anniversary of the ill-fated Marty Mornhinweg deferral to start overtime (Lions-Bears, Champaign, Ill.; for more details, that is why Google and Bing were invented,
I greatly dislike it when Peter King references an event and then tells his readers to Google or Bing it. He's an asshat. For more details on what that is, Peter should Google it.
but suffice to say it did not end well for coach Mornhinweg),
WELL NOW I AM COMPLETELY IN THE DARK ON WHAT HAPPENED IN THAT GAME. DID MORNHINWEG'S TEAM WIN THE GAME? I CAN'T TELL FROM THE HINT YOU JUST DROPPED!
Bill Belichick chose to give Manning the ball to start overtime. “We were like, ‘Defer? Take the wind?’ Even the captains didn’t know,” said Patriots defensive captain Devin McCourty.
Next time the captains may want to ask this question prior to walking out to midfield for the overtime coin toss. I wonder what would happen if the Patriots took 20 minutes to decide if they took the wind or deferred? Could the officials force the Patriots to make a decision? Peter King should Bing the answer to this and get back to me.
The name “Peter” (no relation) playing a huge role in the outcome.
Cutesy of you to say "no relation," Peter. Very precocious of you.
Let’s talk about that muff.
Sounds like Peter's being using the Google machine to look up more than the answer to football-related questions and he is leaning towards Googling more NSFW content now that he has artistic freedom at THE MMQB.
It says so much about the game, and about why it turned the way it did
Yes, the turnover in overtime that put the Patriots in immediate field goal range to win the game did have a lot to do with the game turning out like it did. This is analysis, people. Step back and let Peter do his work.
One bit of weirdness after another. “It was a significant wind,” said Belichick in explaining his call. Okay, but handing the ball to Manning? No way Belichick would have done this under the old overtime rules. Before 2012, any score in overtime would end the game. Starting last year, each team would possess the ball at least once in overtime, unless there was a touchdown or safety on the first possession. Upon the second possession, the game would be in sudden death. The specter of Manning driving, say, 40 yards to the winning field goal was far, far different than the specter of Manning driving 75 yards to the winning touchdown.
I just want to throw it out there that "Specter of Manning" would be a good name for a band and "It was a Significant Wind" would be a great name for this band's first power ballad...because of course Specter of Manning would be an 80's band that rocked hard but also weren't afraid to show their gentle side.
“Just a normal punt play,” Ebner said.
But not so normal.
The drama builds...
Back for Denver was Wes Welker, a sure-handed returner. Sure-handed, yes. But not the normal guy back there. The Broncos yanked Trindon Holliday, the normal (and dangerous) return man, because he’d fumbled earlier, and Welker, who’d returned but four punts all season, awaited.
You like how Peter is providing built-in excuses for Welker not handling this punt return well and telling his teammates to get out of the way early enough? Peter is all like, "Well yeah, but Welker doesn't normally handle punts and he hasn't handled but four punts all season, so there's no reason to expect him to be competent enough to handle a punt return for the Broncos."
It's not like Welker hasn't practiced returning punts or hasn't returned 245 punts in his NFL career. Yeah, there's no reason to expect him to not screw up. I guess Welker needed 300 punt returns in his career for Peter to feel good about him returning a punt in this situation.
“I’ve got to get to him earlier, and get those guys out of the way if I’m not going to make the catch,” said Welker.
Yes, you do.
Carter said, “I was hoping it was something else, not the ball.”
Maybe it was something else falling from the sky hitting Tony Carter in the leg. That would be much better and safer if it was space debris or just something else falling out of the sky and not a football. Realistically, what else was Tony Carter hoping had hit his leg? I really need to know the answer.
“At halftime,” said Ebner, “we knew it was a 60-minute game.
Actually, at halftime it was a 30 minute game at that point. Well, it was really a 42 minute game, but that's beside the point since no one had an idea at halftime overtime would occur.
My two takeaways from this game:
1. I will take Tom Brady in a weather game over Peyton Manning. Without question. Brady’s arm is better.
Does Peter mean a "bad" weather game? Because every game has weather.
2. We’ve spent a lot of time ripping New England’s player-acquisition process in the last few years.
(Bengoodfella looks around him confused) What's this "we" shit? I haven't ripped the player-acquisition process of the Patriots. Don't "we" your audience when it turns out you personally were wrong about something.
New England beat a very good team Sunday night, and it wasn’t just Brady that did it. It took a village.
Just like every Patriots win over another NFL team. It takes more than one player to win the game.
Of course the 2014 Denver-New England game, it happens, would be in Foxboro.
If he’s still around next season at 38, Manning would be playing his 13th career game in Foxboro, and it would be the 10th time in 12 seasons he has competed against Brady in the town halfway between Boston and Providence (not including 2008, when Brady was hurt, and 2011, when Manning was out).
I can't get enough of this quarterback matchup that isn't really a matchup between two quarterbacks but is really a matchup between two NFL teams. I hope the 2014 version of the Broncos-Patriots game gets hyped up even more. I feel like there wasn't quite enough hype around this year's game.
I'm sure Gregg Easterbrook thinks the "Peyton Paradox" is back now that the Broncos have lost a big game.
Indianapolis is a shell of the team it was in September.
The Colts have had to continuously come back in the second half over the past couple of weeks to win games. It simply wasn't sustainable.
I didn’t watch much of their game (my NBC duties precluded it), but I keep seeing Andrew Luck trying to force things.
"I know nothing about what really happened in this game, but let me guess as to what happened based on reading the statistics for the game and watching some highlights."
He’s doing so with so many of his important players gone for the season—guard Donald Thomas (the best offensive lineman on the team), wideout Reggie Wayne, tight end Dwayne Allen—that you wonder if Indianapolis will be able to hold off the flawed Titans and rebound for the playoffs.
Other young quarterbacks struggle to win games without his best players around him and that quarterback just isn't a winner and has been exposed by the NFL (umm...Colin Kaepernick), but when Andrew Luck starts to struggle it's because he just doesn't have enough healthy weapons around him to be a winner. I think I got it. The narrative changes depending on the quarterback.
Then, on Sunday, Indy’s best cornerback, Vontae Davis, went down with a groin injury, and he may miss some time. We gotta figure a way to get off the field. Well, that’s pretty tough to do when your best secondary player, the man whose job it is to get you off the field, is standing on the sidelines.
It's sad to hear the Colts are the only team in the NFL to have lost one of their best defensive players. It would be nice if Peter would make excuses for other NFL teams who suffer injuries to key players. Since Ryan Grigson is such a genius GM I'm surprised he doesn't have depth at the cornerback position to withstand an injury. Maybe he could trade this year's first round pic---well, nevermind, that pick has already been spent.
I'm not trying to be snide or critical of the Colts, but Peter hasn't ever mentioned how the Colts are a shell of a team at all this year prior to this MMQB. He's talked about how the Colts keep coming back and how Andrew Luck plays well in the second half of games, but then the Colts lose a game, and all of a sudden they are a shell of the team they were and may not hold off the flawed Titans (if the Colts do lose a playoff spot to the Titans, wouldn't this mean the Colts were flawed too?) for a playoff spot. He bases everything he says about the Colts on the fact they lost this week. When the Colts are winning, they aren't a bad team, but now they lose a game and all of a sudden this is a team who is a shell of the team they were in September. Peter did this last week with the Chiefs. It's fine to believe the Chiefs and Colts are flawed, but don't base this opinion solely on the fact they just lost football games. Try to have some foresight. The fact the Colts kept having to come back in games is a sign their success may not have been sustainable. I'm sure if the Colts win this upcoming weekend then Peter will jump right back on the bandwagon.
Sunday was the seventh straight game the Colts have trailed in the first half. Two of the last three have been downright embarrassing.
Six straight games the Colts have trailed in the first half, but because the Colts were able to come back in a few of these games Peter only noted how the Colts were down early as evidence of how clutch Andrew Luck and the Colts are when coming from behind.
With road games at Cincinnati and Kansas City remaining in the last five weeks, it’s fair to say if they can’t beat the Titans at home, their once rock-solid playoff hopes are in jeopardy.
These "rock-solid" playoff hopes were probably rock-solid back in Week 3 of this season when Peter was deciding which teams were and were not going to make the playoffs. Not that Week 3 is too early to make any postseason pronouncements of course.
My quick hit on a fun weekend of football: There’s no unbeatable team.
Every NFL team can be beaten. These are the types of insights a person reads MMQB for.
Now that Seattle has lost two of its top three corners for the next month—Brandon Browner to injury, Walter Thurmond (according to Ian Rapoport of NFL Network) to a four-game substance-abuse suspension—even the 10-1 Seahawks might be vulnerable to a productive passing team.
They should have lost to Tampa Bay and Carolina already, so it's obvious that Seattle isn't unbeatable. Plus, Peter King noted last week the Seahawks aren't the same team when playing on the road.
“The parity is unbelievable,” San Diego quarterback Philip Rivers told me after the Chargers—who’d lost three in a row before Sunday—put up 41 on the formerly impenetrable Chiefs. At Arrowhead.
This is the same Chiefs team that had a great pass rush until they lost a game, at which point Peter King noticed the Chiefs didn't really have a great pass rush over their last three games.
The Chargers are 5-6. There are six of those 5-6 teams in the AFC, and the one that wins the tiebreaker currently, Tennessee, is the sixth playoff seed at the moment. Tennessee, Pittsburgh, Baltimore, San Diego, the Jets, Miami … With the exception of the Jets, who are playing poorly, you can’t count one of those teams out.
It's probably stupid to count the Jets out too. You never know.
That’s this year’s NFL. I ask again: Can you tell me with conviction right now that San Francisco is better than Arizona? That’s an unthinkable question a month ago. It’s a legitimate one today.
Well, it wasn't unthinkable. I'm not expert and I predicted the Cardinals would be 8-8 this year and the 49ers would be 11-5, while also stating that probably under-predicts (I just made that word up) the Cardinals season record. The 49ers started a quarterback who had limited experience starting in the NFL and teams would have all offseason to scout him, while the Cardinals had no quarterback last year and were bound to improve with a somewhat competent quarterback slinging the ball around for them.
Fine Fifteen
1. Seattle (10-1). Tough call for No. 1. Seattle, New England, Carolina, Denver and New Orleans in contention.
In theory, every NFL team is in contention for the #1 spot since they are all eligible to be placed in this spot.
Seattle will need Byron Maxwell, a third-year dime back from Clemson, to step up in the next four weeks. No problem! ’Hawks just have Drew Brees, Colin Kaepernick, Eli Manning and Carson Palmer on the horizon.
Well, two of those quarterbacks haven't struck a lot of fear in defenses this year.
4. New Orleans (9-2). No team has it tougher over 21 December days starting next Monday: at 10-1 Seattle, 7-3 Carolina at home, at 5-6 St. Louis, at 7-3 Carolina.
The Saints only have it tough because the NFL has it out for them. I'm sure the Saints can work up a complex over the next four weeks where no one likes them and is treating them unfairly, which is why they play teams over the next four weeks who are 29-13. No one believes in the Saints and they are being unfairly persecuted!
6. San Francisco (6-4). Talk about a lucky break. When Seattle travels to Candlestick for a game the Niners have to have in two weeks, the Seahawks will be without their second and third corners, and, presumably, San Francisco will have Michael Crabtree back.
Yes, it is very fortunate that the 49ers are getting their best receiver who has missed the entirety of this season back at some point during the season. Those lucky 49ers. How fortunate are they that they didn't have their best receiver all season?
9. Indianapolis (7-4). Talked to an influential Colts guy a few days ago.
He talked to Andrew Luck or Chuck Pagano. I feel like this is obvious.
That’s the tight end who was one of the best rookies in football last year, drafted to pair with Coby Fleener in two-tight-end sets and star individually. Bruising blocker and sure-handed receiver. That, plus the loss of Reggie Wayne, is killing this offense.
Very likely, and yet I feel like these same excuses aren't being used to explain Colin Kaepernick's struggles. Not that Andrew Luck is really struggling all that much right now.
Offensive Players of the Week
Tom Brady, quarterback, New England. The wind became a prominent part of last night’s game when the Patriots chose to defend in overtime, but Brady looked as if he was playing in a light breeze in the Patriots’ incredible second-half and overtime comeback. Brady managed a respectable 6.9 yards per passing attempt despite the elements (4.2 for Manning), and had 274 of his 344 yards after the half.
Not a snarky comment, but Manning's reduced arm strength really showed last night with some of his passes into the wind. A few of his throws weren't accurate up to his standards and seemed to wobble a bit more than usual.
Goat of the Week
Matthew Stafford, quarterback, Detroit. Four interceptions against the Bucs, the third with the Lions driving for a potential 11-point lead. Detroit lost to the previously 2-8 Bucs. A bad day for the young gunslinger.
But I thought that comeback against the Cowboys that ended with a fake spike and dive into the end zone led to a whole new Matthew Stafford? I'm shocked Matthew Stafford is still the same old quarterback even after having that career-defining play.
“Do you think I sit around all day looking at magazines, or what? I don’t even know what you’re talking about. I haven’t seen a newspaper today. I don’t know what’s happening in the world.”
—Alabama coach Nick Saban, asked Thursday what he thought of the new Sports Illustrated cover, with his own quarterback, A.J. McCarron, on it.
I'm not sure that's healthy.
“I personally feel like the flag went down for a reason, and it looked like a foul to me.”
—Rams coach Jeff Fisher, with the last word on the ill-fated picked-up flag on the last play of the Panthers-Patriots game last Monday night.
I think it looked like a flag to me too and should not have been picked up. Of course I don't care what Jeff "8-8" Fisher thinks. He's just mad the NFC team won and that means the Rams are that much closer to not making the playoffs where he could better justify the high salary the Rams are paying him. I know Fisher is on the Competition Committee and I also know he's overrated as a coach, but his media cronies like Peter King protect him from any real criticism and won't do any real criticism themselves. That's my basic issue with Jeff Fisher and now I'm way off the topic at hand.
In Kaepernick’s 10 starts last year, Michael Crabtree, Mario Manningham and Randy Moss totaled 94 catches, 1,313 yards and seven touchdowns.
In Kaepernick’s 10 starts this year, Crabtree hasn’t played, Manningham has played two games, and Moss is off the team. Their Niner totals this year: four catches, 38 yards.
In other words, it’s Anquan Boldin—new to Kaepernick this year—
Now Peter, let's not make excuses. You told us during 49ers training camp and after Boldin's monster Week 1 performance that he and Kaepernick were quickly on the same page. Don't throw this "new to Kaepernick" excuse out there now. You've already stated that he and Kaepernick got on the same page quickly and it's obvious they did after Boldin's performance in Week 1.
Then Peter talks about JFK's assassination in terms that Hugh Millen was born three hours before JFK was assassinated. The best JFK ever did for his popularity was get killed. He didn't have time to disappoint anyone and he's a legend in the minds of many. It's the principle behind the best thing Janis Joplin, Jimi Hendrix and Kurt Cobain did was die before the world got enough of them. I can see a bloated Janis Joplin doing an entire album of depressing duets with Stevie Nicks and Hendrix having a comeback album featuring the new hit single sung by Adam Levine.
John F. Kennedy was a huge football fan, and he spent the last Sunday of his life, in part, watching the game of the week in the National Football League: the 8-1 Packers (winners of two straight NFL titles) and the 8-1 Bears, live from Wrigley Field on Nov. 17, 1963.
Make this Kennedy stuff stop. It feels like it is going on two weeks of nothing but a discussion of JFK. He's dead and it is a sad thing. Peter seemingly has a new obsession. I wonder how Brett Favre feels about this.
So now you know the answer to the JFK Trivia Contest: What was the last game this football-mad president ever watched?
(Bangs head on the desk)
“I MUST call Bull—- on da slide! #scaredycat!!’’
—@SamuelLJackson, Falcons fan and movie star, after watching quarterback Matt Ryan slide at the Saints’ 5-yard-line on 3rd-and-goal instead of trying to score a touchdown. Atlanta settled for a field goal. Jackson did not settle for the field goal, however.
Matty Icccccccccccccccccccce doesn't care to get hit hard even when he doesn't have a big contract to play for.
Ten Things I Think I Think
1. I think this is what I liked about Week 12:
b. Kyle Long interrupting his mother, Diane, with a kiss on the cheek while she prepared for a FOX interview before the Rams-Bears game.
How precocious of Kyle Long.
c. Cam Jordan, the precocious Saints defensive end, returning from a mini-slump to sack Matt Ryan twice, share in a third sack and knock him down another time.
Peter loves to use the word "precocious" to describe a grown man. I don't understand why he does this, but he does, and it is never not annoying to me. Precocious means a person exhibits unusually mature qualities at such an early age. Cam Jordan is 24 years old and has 9.5 sacks. He isn't precocious. Peter needs to stop using this word in an effort to project child-like qualities on adults. Peter is obsessed with making grown men seem like they are children.
i. Excuse me for praising Miami GM Jeff Ireland—that is quite out of fashion these days—
Because there are quite a few things that don't deserve praise. Don't act like Ireland is being criticized needlessly.
but the value of getting pass rusher Olivier Vernon with the 72nd pick of the 2012 draft is pretty good. Vernon is a big help to Cameron Wake, giving offensive coordinators another pass-rushing headache when they play Miami.
Great job. Jeff Ireland did his job well and for that he deserves praise. You aren't a rebel for acknowledging Ireland made a draft pick that seems to be playing well.
o. Zac Stacy, proving the Rams were lucky Steven Jackson walked. Hope he’s okay after leaving with a head injury.
Zac Stacy was drafted by the Rams and the Rams are really good at drafting! You should read this article Peter wrote in May about how good the Rams are at drafting. They are on the right track to becoming a really successful team under Jeff Fisher. It's a rebuilding process though, so give Fisher another year or two after this year once he decides Sam Bradford isn't his quarterback of the future, at which point Fisher will be buying himself more time by pointing out Rams fans shouldn't expect immediate success with a new quarterback at the helm.
p. The more I see Mike Glennon, the more I like him.
His precociousness is off the charts.
t. Just as Joe Buck says Tony Romo has to step up in the fourth quarter, less than four minutes left in a 21-all tie at the Meadowlands, Romo lofts a perfect back-shoulder 18-yard third-down conversion on Antrel Rolle to keep the Dallas drive going.
But this ruins the narrative that Tony Romo is a choker when it counts.
2. I think this is what I didn’t like about Week 12:
a. Ref Ron Winter in the Saints-Falcons game missing both a facemask and blow to the head call on Akiem Hicks against Matt Ryan.
(Saints fans everywhere) "See, this is just further proof the NFL is against our team! The officials intentionally miss a call that goes again---oh wait, this call went in favor of the Saints? Well, why does Peter King have to report on things that occur during a football game with such a slant against the Saints? He did this when reporting on the bounty scandal too. He reported facts, rather than just not say anything bad about the Saints. It's us against the world!"
g. You’re not supposed to boot a field goal into the helmet of a lineman on your own team, Graham Gano.
The snap was low and I'm pretty sure he wasn't intentionally trying to hit the helmet of one of his linemen.
k. Luke Kuechly’s a lucky man. Two weeks in a row now.
Kuechly was lucky against the Patriots, but the announcers and Mike Pereira eventually agreed that Kuechly didn't lead with his helmet in the end zone when hitting a Dolphins player. I doubt Peter watched anything but the highlights as he prepared for Brady and Manning to face off once again, so I'm not sure what I should expect from him.
One other comment about defensive players leading with their head...Kuechly went up in the air to hit the Dolphins receiver and force him to drop the ball. I don't think he led with his head nor made contact with the receiver's head, but how is the defensive player expected to adjust in mid-air to a receiver jumping or making a move to catch the football? I get a defensive player isn't expected to launch himself at an offensive player, but there are times a defensive player could be leading with his shoulder and then the offensive player moves to where the defensive player contacts the head. I get the reason for the rule and I support it, but sometimes I think defensive players have a disadvantage because they are expected to adjust mid-air or in a split second to a move of the body the offensive player might make that could be the difference in a clean hit and a penalty.
l. Terrible pick thrown by Alex Smith.
Impossible. He's a winner and the perfect game manager.
6. I think Pete Carroll might need to redouble his efforts to warn players about substances they can’t put in their bodies, with Walter Thurmond blowing the chance of a lifetime by accepting a four-game suspension for violating the league’s substance-abuse policy, according to NFL Network’s Ian Rapoport. He’s the third Seattle defensive back to get similarly whacked in 12 months, and this will put tremendous pressure now on Richard Sherman to be really good over the next four weeks.
I wonder if we will get a repeat of last year's "Boy the Seahawks are really screwed without Sherman and Browner" talk from Peter King. Last year we got this talk from Peter and it turned out the Seahawks weren't screwed at all.
7. I think Darnell Dockett is the winner of the NFL’s Most Underrated Interview award.
I think this isn't a real award and you just made it up as an excuse to mention that Darnell Dockett is a good interview, so you decided to mention this in the most bizarre way possible.
8. I think under the category of “Contracts They’d Love To Have Back,” I give you Cortland Finnegan, the 108th- and lowest-rated cornerback in the NFL after 11 weeks, according to ProFootballFocus.com. The Rams paid him $50 million over five years in 2012, and place him on injured-reserve Saturday … after he’d allowed 76.5 percent of the passes to his men to be complete, and allowed opposing quarterbacks a 136.0 rating on passes thrown in his area.
It's absolutely impossible the Rams would want this contract back because this is assuming the Rams have made a mistake and with the effortlessly reliable leadership of Kevin Demoff and steady hand of Jeff Fisher leading the Rams ship they won't make a mistake. So the Rams wanting a contract back would assume the team has made a mistake and the Rams don't ever make mistakes. Ever.
By the way, where was this excellent Rams rushing attack at when Sam Bradford was the team's quarterback? Poor guy gets hurt and the Rams start running the ball well.
10. I think these are my non-NFL thoughts of the week:
b. I am an incredible know-nothing about the NBA, but there’s a chance I knew what I was talking about when I said the Nets were dumb for thinking you could win an NBA title with an Old Timers team.
I always dislike it when Peter writes that we need to discount his opinion on a topic and then the very next statement consists of Peter wanting us to take his opinion on that very same topic seriously.
d. The Yankees got better by signing Brian McCann. No doubt about it. Great ballpark for him. But …
e.
But this thought should be a continuation of "d" since "e" addresses the same topic discussed in "d" and "e" is in fact just a continuation of the exact same thought began in "d"?
I know we’re not supposed to care about batting average anymore, but he has hit .242 over the past two years. RBI high over the last four years: 77. I would have liked the signing a lot more in 2009 than 2014.
Three things:
1. The signing occurred in 2013.
2. And also, McCann was very, very injured during the 2012 season to the point he couldn't swing a bat and was benched during the idiotic one game Wild Card playoff. McCann missed the first month of the 2013 season due to surgery on this injured shoulder. So that had an effect on his batting average.
3. Any idiot would have liked this signing more four years ago. McCann is a catcher and would have been 25 years old instead of 29 years old in 2009. This is a pretty obvious statement. Though if McCann signed a five year contract in 2009 then his last two seasons that Peter doesn't seem to care for would have come while he was earning $34 million and not $23.5 million for these two years. So I'm not sure Peter would have liked McCann's production at $17 million per year.
j. Coffeenerdness: There is not much better in life early on a Sunday morning than the smell of Italian roast coffee wafting through the home.
I feel like Peter forces his wife to make the coffee before he wakes up. It seems to me like he would berate her if he is out of the shower and there is no fresh coffee available.
"If I wanted to be treated like I lived at a Holiday Inn where they don't make coffee before 6am then I would have stayed at a Holiday Inn last night. Make my coffee and put on a smile about doing it!"
k. Beernerdness: Tried perhaps my last pumpkin brew for the year (they start to disappear in favor of winter ales now), the River Horse Hipp-o-Lantern Pumpkin Ale from Ewing, N.J., the other night. Not enough pumpkin nose or taste for me. A little too alcohol-laden at 8.7 percent.
There's no such thing as an alcoholic drink that is too alcohol-laden. I haven't had the Hipp-o-Lantern Pumpkin Ale in a couple of years, but I will be taking a tour of this brewery in Ewing, N.J. on Saturday, so I will see if Peter is just being a wimp about the alcohol content or just being a beer snob. Nearly every River Horse beer I have ever had has been great, even the milk stout beer wasn't bad, and I tend to stay away from milk stout beer.
l. Best TV show I saw (and I didn’t see many) on the JFK anniversary: Tom Brokaw’s two-hour special Friday night with so many of the vital characters in the story. The shoe-store manager who followed Oswald into the theater where he was captured, one of the two cops who nabbed Oswald, the guy who drove Oswald to work (with his gun disguised as curtain rods) on the fateful day, the doctor who tended to Kennedy when he was wheeled into the operating room at Parkland Hospital. Great work.
What about the guy on the street who saw Oswald at a restaurant the night before? What did he have to say? What about the girl whose mom met JFK 24 hours to the minute he was killed in Dallas? Can we interview her?
San Francisco 23, Washington 20. This will be a better game than people think, and not just because the Niners have to travel.
It gets very wearisome to have to hear a sportswriter tell me what everyone else is thinking simply so he/she can disprove this imaginary group-thinking as not being true.
The Adieu Haiku
Dan Dierdorf rode his
bike to the Hall as a kid.
Forever Canton.
Very precocious of Dierdorf to ride his bike to the Hall of Fame as a child.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)