1 comments MMQB Review: Contractual Issues Edition

Peter King interviewed Brian Polian last week regarding Manti Te'o and Polian said that Te'o is a good person, he just trusts too many people and is a bit naive about the world. I'm guessing Polian didn't think about the idea Te'o could have problems dealing with new-found friends and more money upon entering the NFL. It may not happen, but a naive, trusting person could definitely run into issues when making the move from the more sheltered Notre Dame environment to the NFL. A few weeks ago, Peter seemed to indicate he thought Joe Flacco may end up being franchise-tagged and then eventually traded. For some reason when Ozzie Newsome and Steve Bisciotti said that certain veteran players won't be re-signed, Peter thought that included the Ravens not re-signing Joe Flacco and trading for a veteran quarterback like Alex Smith or Matt Flynn. It turns out the Ravens re-signed Joe Flacco and didn't look to go in a different direction at the quarterback position. It's not shocking to me, but I'm still not sure of Peter's line of thought when he stated the Ravens may let Flacco go. This week in MMQB, Peter talks about Tom Brady's contract situation (a lot), Joe Flacco's contract situation, and has some criticism for people who dare to talk on their phone while outside exercising.

I'll get to the news of the week in the never-ending NFL news cycle in a few moments, but let's start with the elephant in the room in the wake of the Tom Brady contract. A majority of you seem skeptical (and that's putting it mildly) that Brady did a good thing for the Patriots the other day.

Here we go. Let's separate everyone into either the "Tom Brady did a noble thing to give up money and was completely altruistic in doing so" camp or the "Tom Brady was only looking out for himself and this contract extension only serves to make Tom Brady more wealthy at the expense of the Patriots" camp. Really, there's no middle ground is there? That's no fun to see there being some middle ground. There's no way this contract extension can serve as a way to give Brady guaranteed money while also helping the Patriots out.

Mostly, I like how Peter uses a large part of MMQB to allow Robert Kraft to explain the deal. Obviously it was a great story, but I can't stop getting the feeling that some NFL owners and coaches see Peter as their mouthpiece of sorts. Certain owners and GM's know they can call him and he will give them space in MMQB to give their side of an issue. Peter gave Robert Kraft a lot of space in MMQB for quotes and a forum to explain the contract negotiations in detail.

This is what I hear from people in the media business and on Twitter, by and large: The three-year, $27 million contract extension's a phony deal.

Or, put another way: He'll never play for $7 million, total, in 2015. The quarterback and the Pats have to have some agreement -- tacit, at least -- to re-do the deal if Brady's still Brady then.

I never even thought the Patriots and Brady would have some kind of agreement to re-do the deal. Anyway, what does it matter if they do? It's not like the Patriots are tampering or circumventing the salary cap by promising Brady a bigger deal down the road. This criticism makes not of sense and it's frankly stupid. Who cares if there is an unspoken agreement to pay Brady down the road? I don't get either why it matters if Brady took less money to be altruistic or isn't really taking less money.

This, first, from the man who birthed the idea of the Brady extension and broached it to Brady in painstaking detail when they flew alone together from Massachusetts to Los Angeles the week after the Patriots' season ended:

"No, no, no,'' Patriots owner Robert Kraft told me. "This is a real deal. Look at our track record. We don't do fake deals. The contract we have with Tom Brady is a real contract we will both live by."

Ok, well this is stupid to expect Kraft to answer this question honestly. Obviously if there is a secret deal in place Robert Kraft isn't going to admit to it. Peter seems to think, "I don't know if the Patriots have agreed to a secret deal with Brady down the road. Let me ask the owner of the Patriots if there is a deal....well, Robert Kraft denies it so it must be true there is no agreement to re-do the deal in the future."

Of course Kraft would deny this if there was a secret handshake deal. It wouldn't be a secret if Kraft admitted there was a deal in place for the future.

Kraft said he had "been thinking about this for three or four years. I was probably wearing my fan hat as much as anything else. I just didn't want to ever see this become like Joe Montana leaving San Francisco, Emmitt Smith leaving Dallas, Brett Favre leaving Green Bay, Peyton Manning leaving Indianapolis.

I would strongly argue that three of these examples are bad examples. Dumping Montana led to Steve Young and the 49ers winning another Super Bowl. Dumping Favre led to a Super Bowl victory for the Packers and dumping Manning has led the Colts to turning their team around quickly and having a promising young quarterback in place. I get what Kraft is saying, but I could also see this statements as reasoning to not hang on to Brady too long. Learn from three of these four examples and move on when the time feels right to do so.

So Kraft and Brady boarded the plane five weeks ago, and Kraft laid out the rough vision he had for the deal. "We had a lot of time to talk,'' Kraft said. "Six hours." Kraft wasn't exact with the terms that day, but he got the idea across. The Patriots, essentially, would convert all the money in the last two years of his current deal to guaranteed money in the form of bonuses to be paid out between now and 2015. The Patriots would add $3 million to the deal now. In exchange, Brady would extend the deal three years for significantly less money than the market would yield if he were free two years from now -- it turned out to be $7 million in 2015, $8 million in 2016 and $9 million in 2017 -- with one valuable proviso. If Brady were healthy enough, year by year, to continue playing after the 2014 season, the salaries in each of his last three years would be guaranteed in the event of injury. 

It's a good deal for Brady just like it is a good deal for the Patriots. Brady gets guaranteed money as long he stays healthy and the Patriots get to keep a franchise quarterback below market value. It's only up to Tom Brady to decide if this was a dumb contract, and he signed it, so clearly he seems happy.

When Brady and Kraft parted that day, Brady said he'd think about it, and discuss it with his agent, Don Yee, and his family. "I credit Don Yee for being supportive and not talking Tommy out of it,'' Kraft said.

There is something to be said for staying with the organization you have played your entire NFL career for and also staying with the only head coach you have ever played for. Brady knows the organization and I have to imagine being a free agent after playing your entire career in one place is somewhat a pain in the ass in terms of the logistics involved with moving and just getting a feel for a new organization. I would bet Peyton Manning has given Brady a heads-up on what being a free agent and joining a new organization can be like.

Tom knows that it's not like whatever we don't pay him we're putting in the Kraft family pocket. He gets it, and now he's rooting for us to make the right decisions in building the team. By the way, I have heard that it's been reported Tom made demands about who he wanted us to sign. Absolutely not. It never happened.

And again, if Brady had made demands on who he wanted the Patriots to sign then Robert Kraft would most likely not acknowledge this. I know (hope) Peter is smart enough to understand this.

You know, I told Kraft that there will be many who don't buy the blue-skies-and-sunny-days story line here. They'll be waiting to see what the Pats do in the spring of 2015, when so many are sure they'll rewrite the contract to make Brady the fourth-highest-paid quarterback, not the 24th.

Tough, hard-hitting question. I imagine Peter followed up this question by saying, "Not that I would believe that of course Mr. Kraft. Would you like me to dedicate the entire MMQB to what you have to say about Tom Brady's new contract or get you a warm towel and massage to make you more comfortable?"

"These people don't know the relationship between Tommy and this team,'' he said. "Maybe they hate the Patriots, or they're jealous.

An excellent way to ensure some people continue to hate the Patriots is to state those who don't believe Tom Brady was being altruistic are jealous of the Patriots. It's not like a person who has a neutral perspective on the Patriots could EVER disagree with anything Robert Kraft says or see anything but charity when discussing Brady's contract extension. Only those who are jealous of the Patriots could fail to see Brady's altruistic greatness.

I understand the naysayers are out there, but we want to build a team capable of winning every year, and while this is not perfect in every way, we think this will help us get there."

But the naysayers could have a point when asking why Tom Brady would leave (what they see as) a lot of money on the table. Generally, players like to maximize their value, so you can see why some are speculative of Brady's kindness.

The guarantees. Keep in mind Brady was going to make $30 million in cash in the next two years, not guaranteed. Now he'll make $33 million, guaranteed. 

Essentially, Brady is betting on himself to be productive and healthy. Is this a bad move? Who knows, but I guess we'll see.

Brady has $33 million guaranteed today. The $7 million, $8 million and $9 million salaries in 2015, '16 and '17 will be guaranteed, but only if Brady enters each of those league seasons healthy.

So as long as Brady is physically healthy enough to play, he will make $24 million over three years from 2015-2017. That's not a terrible deal for him when he is approaching the age of 40.

My feeling is, out of principle, it's pretty unlikely the Patriots will re-do the deal in 2015, even if Brady's one of the lowest-paid starting passers in the league. He knew what he was getting into when he signed it. But we'll see.

Peter believes something that a person has told him. Who saw that coming?

Finally, I understand the skepticism about a player doing what Brady did, but looking at history, and listening to Kraft, I wouldn't count on this deal adding any new money in the next three seasons. Still want to debate it? I'll be happy to run your best emails in my Tuesday column, with my responses.

Dear Peter King,

It is not a debate when you respond to an email someone sends you and then the conversation between you and the emailer is cut off completely. An actual debate would require much more back-and-forth than just one response by each party to the topic being discussed. You have the bully pulpit of writing for Sports Illustrated and never have to respond to a response to your response. That's not a debate. That's answering a reader's email.

Sincerely,
Ben

On the other side of the salary spectrum comes Joe Flacco.

Joe Flacco is just a greedy-ass bitch in the opinion of Tom Brady.

News broke from Jay Glazer Friday that Flacco and the Ravens had agreed on a six-year, $120.6 million contract -- $20.1 million a year, an average of $100,000 more per season than the previous highest-paid player in football, Drew Brees.

But to be fair, good portions of Brees' salary goes towards paying defensive players for knocking opposing players out of the game or injuring opposing players. So Brees' take-home pay is much, much less than Flacco's take-home pay.

The cap numbers in the first two years of the deal are approximately $6.8 million and $14.8 million, which should allow the Ravens to keep a player or two they really want to keep, such as wideout Anquan Boldin and left tackle Bryant McKinnie.

What? I thought Peter said this couldn't be done? I thought Peter said the Ravens wouldn't re-sign Flacco so they could re-sign their key free agents? My world is spinning and everything that I found to be true is no longer true. 

I think defensive end Paul Kruger, a free agent, will get big money somewhere and won't return. I think it's looking more and more likely that the free-agent inside linebacker the team would like to keep, Dannell Ellerbe, will get a bigger offer elsewhere than the Ravens would be willing to pay. If so, he'll likely leave too.

As usual, I disagree with Peter King. The Ravens have stated they would get rid of veteran free agents and work to keep their younger players. I think the Ravens will try to re-sign Kruger and Ellerbe before signing Boldin and McKinnie to new contracts. I could be wrong and Peter could be right, but he wasn't right about the Ravens possibly not re-signing Joe Flacco, and the Ravens not re-signing McKinnie/Boldin makes sense given the plan Newsome and Bisciotti spoke of a few weeks ago to let veteran free agents go.

The Ravens and Flacco were going to leave the 2012 salary as is ($6.76 milion) and extend the deal five years, through 2017. The two sides were agonizingly close -- the Ravens wanted to pay Flacco $15.5 million in the last year of the deal, unguaranteed, and Flacco's agent, Joe Linta, wanted $17.5 million, unguaranteed. Keep in mind there's a very good chance the last year of the deal wouldn't have been kept intact anyway; it's likely the deal would have been re-done before that season. When the two sides met for the final time to try to get it done, the Ravens were insistent on their 2017 number. Linta probably would have accepted if they'd split the difference at $16.5 million. But the Ravens -- and who could blame them? -- thought they had extended themselves for a player who hadn't been a 4,000-yard quarterback yet.

Plus, they were just going to trade for Alex Smith or Matt Flynn anyway, right Peter? Still, it sounds weird that $2 million was the difference in the negotiations. Seems like small potatoes to me.

In retrospect, the July 2012 position of the Ravens seems more understandable than Flacco's. Only three players in football would have been higher paid than Flacco under the Baltimore five-year extension offer; that seems more than fair.

And sure, the Ravens now probably wish they acceded to Linta's number last summer. But hindsight in contract talks is always 20-20. There's no way anyone (other than Flacco, maybe) could have forecast what Flacco did this postseason. So it's unfair to castigate Baltimore for not caving last year; I can't think of any team, given the same situation, that would have caved.

I don't know why anyone would question the Ravens for not offering Flacco a contract that made him the fourth-highest paid player in the NFL. I don't think many people saw Flacco having the postseason that he ended up having nor expected him to get a $120 million contract after the 2012 season.

I just like the fact that the underdog quarterback won the Super Bowl, and the faithful agent backed him, and both were rewarded.

Let's not call Joe Flacco an underdog quarterback. He was drafted in the first round and was paid $8 million last year. Keep the enthusiasm in-check just a little bit. This isn't the case of the little guy getting rewarded. This is the case of a first round quarterback getting a large contract extension because he had a fantastic postseason. Coming out of Delaware, maybe Flacco was the underdog quarterback, but not now.

"He's not going to win any games for you. He's a defensive back who will shut down the [opponent's] top receiver, but the ball is not in his hands. The Jets need more than a top corner. They need some pieces. If he gives them the value to get those pieces, then move him."

-- ESPN analyst Keyshawn Johnson, on the possibility of the Jets trading Darrelle Revis, to Bob Glauber of Newsday.

Now, I've always liked Keyshawn Johnson. Hard worker when he played, unselfish blocker, etc. But this is one of the most short-sighted things I've heard a TV analyst say in a long time, and that's covering a lot of ground.

Peter King loves himself some Darrelle Revis. Actually, Peter just loves to overvalue cornerbacks. 

He's not going to win any games for you. Let's go back to the Jets' playoff win at San Diego in the 2009 season, the one in which the Jets amassed all of 262 total yards. The receivers Revis covered that day caught one ball -- for minus-four yards. Next year: Jets over the Bengals two straight weeks, once to end the regular season, once to start the playoffs; Revis held Chad Ochocinco to two catches for 28 yards in those eight quarters. Against Indy in the 2010 playoffs, Revis held Reggie Wayne to one catch for one yard when he covered him.

I get that Revis is at the top of his profession, but the Jets gave up 262 total yards against the Chargers because other defensive players played well also. It wasn't all Darrelle Revis. Revis has been fantastic in the past, but he's (potentially) holding out once again. Keyshawn's point was that the Jets have other holes on the roster they should work on filling and giving Darrelle Revis a contract extension when coming off a major injury  probably isn't the best allocation of resources. Johnson is saying if Revis can bring back some good players then it may be worth it to trade him. If Revis doesn't bring back good value on the trade market then choose to keep him. Johnson is saying the Jets need offensive players and a quarterback. If trading Revis gets the Jets those two things, then they should consider trading him.

But don't insult the readers of Newsday by saying defensive players aren't going to win games, implying, of course, that the only players who should make really big money are offensive players. Watch the game. Watch the games in 2012, and you'll see how, with the rise of the mobile quarterback, cornerbacks are going to be more valuable than ever because they'll be on islands with the Calvin Johnsons and Andre Johnsons more, without the regularity of safety help.

I can't believe I am semi-defending Keyshawn Johnson, but he wasn't saying only offensive players should get big money. Johnson was saying Revis is coming off a major injury, probably wants another contract, and the Jets have quite a few needs. The Jets have quite a few holes on the roster. If trading Revis makes the team as a whole better, then trade him.

Peter takes it so personally whenever someone criticizes Darrelle Revis. It's really odd. It's like Peter can't accept that making Revis happy isn't the Jets only offseason goal.

According to ESPN's Trey Wingo, first-round draft prospect Barkevious Mingo has a brother named Hughtavious Mingo, and another brother named Hugh Mingo.

Peter King thinks minorities are so funny in how they name their children!

Twice on Sunday in Manhattan this happened: I was walking my dog, Bailey, on the East Side of town, once in the morning and once in the afternoon. And on each walk I saw a person jogging -- guy in the morning, woman in the afternoon -- while talking on a phone, hands free, into a wire draping from the ears.

It's infuriating when a person comes to a counter on the phone, whether it be at the grocery store, the deli or wherever. It's infuriating because these people want to be served, but don't want to give up their precious phone time. I hate it. This is different from what Peter is describing these joggers were doing. It's slightly weird when someone is jogging and talking on the phone, but it is also their choice to do so. It isn't bothering anyone and it gives you a good chance to laugh at them behind their back. Let people live their lives how they see fit and just walk your damn dog without standing in judgment of any or everyone. These two people want to jog while talking on the phone. It's their choice. Why does Peter insist on going out in public and then leering or silently judging those people he doesn't believe are doing exactly what they should be doing while in public?

The woman was gesturing quite emphatically as she approached, and for a second I thought she was talking to me. The one thing I heard her say as she jogged by was, "And so I said, THAT IS NOT HAPPENING!' ''

Actually, it sounds like she was talking to Peter. She probably heard him muttering under his breath about how the Jets would be smart to pay Darrelle Revis as much money as he wants.

Free country.

But do you really think it is a free country, Peter? Please understand you criticize people you see in public on a near-weekly basis because they don't do exactly what you think they should be doing while in public.

But it's amazing we cannot live without phones for any length of time.

How many times has Peter told us he made a phone call or two while traveling on the Acela? It's silly to run or jog while talking on the phone, but it is possible this is the only time people have to talk on the phone. This is just like when Peter talks on the phone on a train, perhaps that annoys some passengers, but he doesn't care because in his opinion he's the most normal person in the world.

I just think it's bizarre to see people out for exercise talking on the phone.

It's also bizarre to stare at people in public and make notes of every action a person takes, yet Peter seems to do this.

"Whoever designed the phoenix airport really needs to be prosecuted."

-- @JonHeymanCBS, presumably traversing said airport Saturday afternoon.

Sounds like Jon needs to call Scott Boras and get him to fix this immediately. I'm guessing Heyman was in Phoenix personally making a plea to the Diamondbacks to make a run at signing Johnny Damon.

1. I think it's a great year, with the middle-class depth of this draft, to be picking 16th, 22th and 46th overall, as the Rams are.

But again, it is folly for the Jets to trade Revis for a 1st and 2nd round pick because that's what they gave up for the right to draft him. Why would the Jets want two first round picks and two second round picks in this draft where there is great depth of players? It's not worth having these picks in exchange for Revis. Yeah, it is a straw man argument I am making, but I don't care.

Also, Peter thinks Jeff Fisher rules. Never forget this. It's good the Rams have these picks since they gave up the opportunity to draft Robert Griffin in exchange for one of these first round picks.

They're the only team with three picks in the top 50. If I'm St. Louis, I spend money on a left tackle in free agency (could they steal a damaged-goods Jake Long for three years, $25 millon, with a lot up front and/or guaranteed?), then do what GM Les Snead knows he should to build a long-term winner: pick the best players, almost regardless of position.

But again, why trade Darrelle Revis? It's not like the Jets have more than one need on their roster. Trading Revis would only free up salary cap room and bring back picks in return for Revis.

Sorry I keep harping on this, but the idea the Rams are in a great position in the draft because they have cap room and three picks in the top 50, but the Jets shouldn't try to emulate this seems silly to me. I realize the Jets would be giving up Revis through a trade, but they really have more than one position of need.

5. I think, still, that Manti Te'o will be a first-round pick (not past No. 21 to Cincinnati).

Much like Te'o, it seems that Peter believes what people tell him. I guess we'll see and I can see why Te'o would be a first round pick, but I can also see how he falls to the second round. It's not like teams put up smoke screens through the media this time of the year or anything like that.

As one scout told me over the weekend, if you assume Te'o is likely to be a two-down player out of the lineup on most third downs, or passing downs, then the importance of his 40 time diminishes.

So the fact Te'o ran a slow 40 time is a GOOD THING. Teams want to spend first round picks on three-down linebackers. It is the dream of an NFL team to grab a 4-3 linebacker in the first round who only plays on first or second down. Also, the fact Te'o is naive and not worldly is a good thing. He will be great fun at parties when his teammates try to convince him unicorns really do exist.

I love the spin Peter puts on Te'o's 40 time. It's a good thing he is slow because all those teams that are looking to draft two-down linebackers in the first round don't care if he is slow. It's not like NFL teams throw on first or second down.

And his 10- and 20-yard intervals were in the range of what players who run 4.6-second 40s would do. So if you assume it's important for an inside linebacker to have good burst, strength and instinct, then a guy with fast 10-yard speed is going to be valuable for that position.

I wonder if Peter shares an agent with Manti Te'o. I know Peter has been working really hard for Te'o over the past couple of weeks.

6. I think Randy Moss played well enough to get one more year somewhere in 2013. Where, I don't know. But it'd have to be very cheap, and the coach would have to be secure enough and comfortable enough with his own decisions and scheme to bring in a guy he'd have to manage pretty carefully. Can't see him back in New England after his selfish rant a couple of years ago, but you never know.

BREAKING NEWS: Peter King thinks a pending free agent may end up with the New England Patriots.

8. I think the Patriots are going to find a way to keep Aqib Talib. He's too important at a position that otherwise is bankrupt for New England.

And of course Tom Brady's new contract helps the Patriots keep Talib.

9. I think you can trust me on this one: If the Ravens hadn't gotten Joe Flacco committed to a new deal by today, they would not have franchised him at the exclusive level, which would have been $6 million more than the regular franchise tag. They just didn't want to have Flacco on the books for $20 million in 2013.

Even then a team would have to sign Flacco and give up a picks in the process. I just don't believe there is an NFL team that would give Flacco the $120 million he wanted and was willing to give up picks to make this happen. That's just my opinion.

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

d. Wonder if Dennis Rodman would call the North Koreans a friend for life if he took five minutes to understand how the Kim Jong-un administration treats its citizens.

e. Read Escape From Camp 14, Dennis. Then sit with that man and laugh while watching a basketball game.

Come on, it's Dennis Rodman. If you take anything he does or says seriously then it's your own fault. He knows a lot more about North Korea than many, many other people do, but I can't take Rodman seriously. He can call Kim Jong-un "the greatest man who ever lived" and I would take that statement with a grain of salt.

f. Seems to me Rory McIlroy could have played 10 more holes of golf with a toothache.

Yeah Rory, tough it out. It's always fun to hear journalists urging athletes to be tougher.

l. Beernerdness: One of the great things about visiting Boston (and I'm a broken record here) is finding Harpoon's UFO White beer in a bar -- and then having your boss pick up the tab for a couple before getting on the train back home.

One of the great things about reading MMQB is getting to hear Peter tell stories of how people buy him free shit. Riveting theater. I strongly suggest Meryl Streep play the lead in the motion picture based on this story.

The Adieu Haiku

Mad at Flacco? Why?
It's the American way.
Bet on himself. Won.

Why would anyone be mad at Joe Flacco? I don't know what world Peter has been living in lately, but there is no one who could be mad at Flacco for signing a big contract. There may be people who think the Ravens were stupid for giving Flacco such a big contract, but that's not the same thing as being mad at Flacco. 

6 comments MMQB Review: Airline Rankings Edition

Peter requested that he be stranded on a desert island last week in MMQB. Unlike his request for a large bus to tour the country during his training camp tours over the summer, Sports Illustrated nor NBC granted this request. Peter was also not impressed by the bad storms that killed people in the northeast. Neither living on a desert island or talking about storms is the purpose of MMQB. Mostly Peter wanted to spend some NFL offseason time discussing the Ravens clear want to not re-sign Joe Flacco this offseason. Peter was under the impression the Ravens had an entire plan together to not re-sign Flacco, which I think is ridiculous. This week Peter talks about the NFL Draft, what players have the most to lose at the Combine, and (most importantly of all) ranks his favorite airlines. In a stroke of irony, Peter also details Ron Rivera telling fellow minority head coaching candidates how to interview for and get a head coaching job. It's ironic because Rivera is on the hottest of hot seats and he interviewed approximately 132 times for an NFL head coaching job that he could very well lose in the next 10 months after only three years on the job.

So we're at the official beginning of draft season, with the annual Scouting Combine starting later this week in Indianapolis. Here's what we know as the 333 college prospects pack for the Heartland:

Here is what we know: Foreign cab drivers suck and hotels don't make very good free coffee. Everything else is up in the air.

It's not going to be a household-name draft. There's a good chance there will be more defensive tackles taken in the first round than quarterbacks, running backs and wide receivers combined.

I would say this year the defensive tackles and offensive tackles are the household names.

Color this draft blue ... as in blue-collar. Best position groups in the draft: offensive line and defensive tackle. Safety is good too, with a smattering of linebackers and defensive ends -- though there are no Von Miller-type pass rushers in the draft.

"Color this draft blue...as in blue-collar." This is why Peter gets paid the big bucks people. Don't try to imitate him, just step back and watch him work.

Also, Damontre Moore and Jarvis Jones argue against the idea there are no Von Miller-type pass rushers in the draft.

Good luck in trading those high picks. "If you're a playoff team this year, you have to be laughing,'' NFL Network draft czar Mike Mayock said between tape sessions Sunday evening. "First, I don't see much difference between the fifth and 25th picks this year. And I don't really see the immediate difference-makers in the top 10.''

I feel like this is often said about drafts where the scouts don't see marquee names at skill positions. Another way to look at a lack of difference in the 5th and 25th picks in the draft is that this draft is deep. This is good for playoff teams, but also good for any non-playoff teams who may want to trade up into the late first round. There's a good chance they are going to find a quality player with a late first round pick.

You'd probably have to go back to 1997 to find a draft like this one. That's the year Peyton Manning eschewed the prospect of going to the Jets first overall to play for Bill Parcells and returned for his senior year at Tennessee. One quarterback (shaky Jim Druckenmiller, 26th) picked in round one. Two backs (Warrick Dunn 12th and Antowain Smith 23rd) in round one,

To be fair, Warrick Dunn was a really good running back in the NFL. He was probably worth the pick used to take him. Antowain Smith wasn't great, but also wasn't terrible.

and four receivers in the first: Ike Hilliard seventh, Yatil Green 15th, Reidel Anthony 16th and Rae Carruth 27th. Yikes! What a horrible draft for point-producers. One star, Dunn, out of seven first-rounders.

I don't know why Peter is cherry-picking these names like he is. Peter's favorite little guy, Tony Gonzalez was drafted in the first round as well in 1997. I guess he didn't put many points on the board. Also, the fact this year's draft is supposedly like the 1997 draft doesn't mean there aren't talented skill position players, it just means NFL teams need to do a better job of finding those skill position players. In 1997, Tiki Barber, Derrick Mason, Corey Dillon, and Jake Plummer were drafted in the first four rounds. That's just on offense. Ronde Barber was drafted in the third round along with Jason Taylor. So the 1997 NFL draft seems more like an example of NFL teams poorly scouting skill position (or point-producer) players more than a draft that lacks talent at skill positions. Plus, Tony Gonzalez was drafted in the first round. I don't see how Peter just skips over this.

It's likely Alabama's Eddie Lacy will be the only running back taken in round one.

It does seem like this draft lacks skill position players, but teams can find quality running backs in rounds other than Round One. Elite running backs are often taken in Round One, but there are quality running backs that can be found in other rounds. So it isn't like Eddie Lacy is the only quality running back in the 2013 NFL Draft.

Tennessee's Cordarrelle Patterson leads the muddled pack at wide receiver, but how sure can you really be of junior-college transfers who play one year of major-college football, which is Patterson's profile?

Can you really be sure of a junior-college transfer quarterback who only started one year of major-college football? That's Cam Newton's profile. Can you really be sure of a quarterback who couldn't even completely nail down the starting quarterback job in college? That's Tom Brady. Can you really be sure of a small college wide receiver who doesn't have great speed? That's Jerry Rice.

One GM interested in acquiring a quarterback this offseason told me over the weekend, "I expect more attention on the quarterbacks throwing this year than on any other single thing at the Combine.''

How does this change from any other year? If the best quarterbacks in the draft chose to throw at the Combine then this would be true every single year. There will always be a larger focus on quarterbacks and how they throw at the Combine.

There's no way that Andy Reid and John Dorsey, the coach and GM for Kansas City, know what they're doing

What? Peter King calling Andy Reid and John Dorsey out!

now.

Oh, nevermind. I thought perhaps Peter was calling Reid and Dorsey out as payback for taking the job of his friend and guy that Peter really likes but Peter was being completely neutral when saying he got too much criticism, Scott Pioli.

Now for a couple of notes about players at the Combine.

It's a very sad year for Peter King. There are seemingly no dreamy quarterbacks for Peter to fall in love with. There was hope with Matt Barkley, but their love withered away and now Barkley isn't worthy of Peter falling for him.

Alec Ogletree. The underclass inside linebacker from Georgia would be a clear top-10 pick with a clean resume. But he was suspended the first four games of last season for failing an offseason drug test, and then came the news Saturday night, via ProFootballTalk.com, that Ogletree recently was pinched for driving while intoxicated.

BREAKING NEWS: College students drink, use drugs and then make bad decisions.

Some GM is going to stake his reputation on Ogletree in the first round, most likely. Which GM? It would have to be a secure one. Green Bay's Ted Thompson or de facto GM Bill Belichick of the Patriots or Baltimore's Ozzie Newsome,

Well of course Alec Ogletree is going to the Patriots and Bill Belichick. If there is ever a question about where a troubled player or a player who has questions about him may end up, Peter always finds the correct answer to be "the Patriots." Of course the Patriots rarely end up drafting or signing these players, but that never fazes Peter. I'm not sure Ogletree is even going to last until the spot where the Patriots or Ravens could take him, but who cares? The Patriots are going to draft Manti Te'o, Alec Ogletree and any other player with a question mark about him in this year's draft.

Finally, three players I'll be watching at the Combine, three with question marks and debatable upsides:

1.Quarterback Sean Renfree, Duke. No one's talking about him, but he completed 70 percent of his throws in six of 12 games for David Cutcliffe last fall, was a comeback specialist, and has the pedigree in a good pro-style offense to play early. Could he be more than a late-round flyer, this year's Ryan Lindley?

Could Ryan Lindley be this year's quarterback who gets drafted in the late rounds and then is forced into action way too early than he should be potentially ruining him before he even gets a chance to develop? Renfree can only hope.

3. Running back Marcus Lattimore, South Carolina. After his devastating dislocated knee and torn knee ligaments in October, Lattimore, considered a certain first-rounder before the injury, is still in recovery mode. His surgeon, James Andrews, told Lattimore recently that he's going to shock the world. "I hear he's working out great,'' said Mayock. Lattimore believes he'll be healthy enough to start the 2013 NFL season. Is he's a fourth-round minefield pick? Or might some team desperate for a back go for him a round earlier -- or even late in the second round?

In my opinion, it would be ridiculous for Marcus Lattimore to not go in the first four rounds of the draft. He has to, right? He was a workhouse back for South Carolina prior to his injury. He is this year's Frank Gore or Willis McGahee me thinks.

The NFL opened a three-day coaching symposium, the third-annual NFL-NCAA Coaches Academy for 60 coaches and coaching prospects, with a keynote speech by Carolina head coach Ron Rivera. The roster of participants includes 28 former NFL players and nine current players. And though the symposium is open to all coaches with fewer than eight years of professional experience, the league certainly hopes to be able to use programs like this one to improve a recently poor record of adding minority coaches to the coordinator and head coaching ranks.

Of course they have a minority coach who was this close to being fired in his second season as a head coach for the keynote speech. That's probably not a great sign.

"This was a younger group, with a lot of guys just getting into coaching,'' said Rivera after his speech to the coaches. Rivera is Hispanic. "My message to them was pretty simple: Keep preparing yourself. I interviewed nine times before I got an offer. You see others get jobs, and you wish it was you. But you have to stick with it, and I did, and I got an opportunity.''

"Then I tried to blow my opportunity by hiring an offensive coordinator who refused to adapt his methods to the talent on the roster and by making incredibly conservative decisions that have consistently cost my team in close games during my tenure as an NFL head coach."

Rivera believes symposiums such as this one are important to develop long-term plans for young coaches. He also thinks -- as do many minority coaches, such as Cincinnati assistant Hue Jackson, the former Raiders head coach -- that interacting with owners in social settings is important, and something the league should do.

How about some more irony? When given the chance to hire a minority assistant coach this offseason (Hue Jackson), Ron Rivera hired Mike Shula. I think that's sort of interesting.

And [Detroit president] Tom Lewand walked by, and Roger asked him to come over and he said to Tom, 'Tell Ron what he needs to do to improve.' And Tom told me a few things that I needed to hear. So I felt one of the things that was important to me advancing in the process was being able to debrief a team after I didn't get the job. I told that to the guys tonight -- find out what you can do better the next time.''

Obviously Tom Lewand didn't tell Ron Rivera to "work on your coaching in tight ball games" because Rivera desperately needs either (a) a reminder or (b) to learn how to do this in the first place.

"He's going to play it outdoors in New York."

-- NBA commissioner David Stern, answering a question intended for future commissioner Adam Silver at the NBA All-Star Game Saturday night. The question: "Where do you plan to play future All-Star Games?"

Don't you get the feeling that, whenever possible, David Stern likes to put the needle into the NFL?

It's classic David Stern. He believes if he says how great he and the NBA are repeatedly then that will make it true. David Stern is the type of commissioner who thinks it was him, not the players, that made the NBA so successful during his tenure.

Could the San Francisco 49ers be turning into the New England Patriots West?

Will the Patriots try to sign the 49ers when free agency starts? Peter thinks so.

The Niners will have eight picks in the first five rounds and six in the final two -- including a compensatory in either the third or fourth round, and two in the seventh. The Patriots have three picks in the first five rounds. They lost their fourth-rounder to Tampa Bay in the Aqib Talib deal, their fifth to Washington in the Albert Haynesworth deal and their sixth to Cincinnati in the Chad Johnson deal. Ouch: Neither Haynesworth nor Johnson played in the NFL last year.

It sounds like the 49ers don't want to turn into the Patriots if these are the examples Peter King will be using of the Patriots "owning" the draft. Every year I have to laugh when Peter talks about teams that have a lot of picks and how they "own" the draft. It doesn't matter how many picks a team has. It matters which players a team drafts with those picks. This is obvious, but every year Peter does a rundown of what team "owns" the draft by having the most picks when it is an exercise in futility. Yes, these teams have the draft picks to move up or down, but they still have to move up or down to choose good players.

Two potential advantages to the Niners, who didn't have much use for either of their first two picks last year because of a roster clogged with talent: They may be able to do what they did last year in the draft and deal current picks for better future ones; the Niners acquired extra third-, fifth- and sixth-round picks in draft deals last year. And they may have the ability to deal multiple picks for a player (Darrelle Revis?) or pick (way up in the first round, for a Dee Milliner). The Niners are going to be a very interesting team to watch come April -- the way the Patriots have been for years, or at least until this year.

The Jets just need to make sure they get more than a first and second round pick for Revis since that's what they traded to acquire Revis. They wouldn't want to commit the folly of getting back in a trade for Revis what they gave up for him.

According to the Las Vegas Sun, a man who acted as the greeter at the city's Heart Attack Grill -- which serves such gastronomical delights as the Quadruple Bypass Burger -- and who ate several times a week at the Heart Attack Grill, was waiting outside the restaurant for a bus when he was felled by a heart attack. His family took him off life support nearly a week later. John Alleman was 52.

So what's Peter's point? This guy deserved to die of a heart attack for how he ate? A heart attack seems like a possible outcome depending on how much he exercised, but what's the point of including this little fact in MMQB? He didn't eat healthy, so he died, but does Peter take some delicious irony in the fact John Alleman died of a heart attack while working at the Heart Attack Grill?

Here's my rating of some of our air carriers, apropos of nothing. My criteria are selfish ones; if an airline treats me great and I hear horror stories about it, I love it. If an airline lost my luggage, I hate it. I used to hate Delta; now I love Delta. So, basically, these ratings are utterly worthless. To anyone but me. So here goes.

"Here are my completely worthless ratings of airlines. In fact, these ratings are so worthless I may change my opinion of each airline in the next week. So this list is pointless, but it does kill time in MMQB during the offseason, which is the most important reason to even make the list."

I get that MMQB is a weekly column and everyone wants it that way, but why kill space in MMQB rather than just make it shorter during the offseason? Make the column as long as the information gathered during the week dictates the column should be.

You will find there are three ways you can make Peter King like your airline and none of them have anything to do with how quickly and effectively the airline gets him from Point A to Point B.

1. Give him free/cheap upgrades to first class.
2. Have good coffee.
3. Have good wireless internet.

2. Delta. I fly a lot, and am on a Delta kick because I live in New York now, and LaGuardia is a big Delta airport. Because I fly Delta a lot, I get lots of free upgrades to business class, and the business class on Delta is far, far better than steerage.
  
3. AirTran. Relatively cheap upgrades to first class, the way it should be. And wireless.

5. Alaska. Good coffee. 

The best way to get Peter to not like your airline is to not give him enough room to move in his seat or enough room to leer at the other passengers.

8. JetBlue. I like the TVs in the seatbacks. If I were a TV-aholic, JetBlue would be much higher. But of all the airlines I've flown over the past few years, JetBlue has the highest percentage of full flights. And the compressed seats in coach on JetBlue are made only slightly more tolerable by being able to see SportsCenter three straight times.

10. American/USAirways. I think the highlight of my USAirways misery was flying in a middle seat in coach from an eastern airport (Philadelphia, I think) to Seattle three or four years ago. Felt like Chevy Chase in the Christmas Vacation movie, praying the chairman of USAirways would have to leave his cushy lair and come face all the angry passengers who would soon be laid up with bad backs because the airline made us all rats in a cage, unable to move in the cells they called airplane seats.

Remember Peter, despite all our rage we are still just a rat in a cage. It's emo Peter King who thinks the world is a vampire when he has to fly American/US Airways.

1. I think Atlanta GM Thomas Dimitroff's claim on NBC's Pro Football Talk show the other day that Tony Gonzalez was 50-50 to return to the NFL is a significant step toward the tight end returning for one more season. A few reasons. Before the season, as you recall, Gonzalez said he was 95 percent sure the 2012 season would be his last. I saw Gonzalez in January and he hadn't budged one percentage point.

I don't care if Tony Gonzalez retires or not. I just want him to make a decision. Fortunately, he doesn't carry the weight in the media of a Brett Favre, so ESPN won't be outside his house waiting for Gonzalez to make a decision.

Why is it an issue now? Because I'm sure Dimitroff has told Gonzalez he'd like a decision before the draft (and probably before free agency begins on March 12) because the tight end is so important in the Atlanta offense that the Falcons can't afford to just go bargain-basement shopping on July 15 if Gonzalez waited that long to give them a decision.

Plus this draft has very few point-producers in the first round. Just like that first round when Tony Gonzalez was drafted.

2. I think I expect lots of activity on the franchise tag front, starting today. Twenty-one teams used the tag last year; it could easily be that many this year. With reasonable numbers at some big positions (quarterback: $14.64 million for a one-year guaranteed deal), you gain peace of mind by tagging a player, and you save some money.

It's Day #1 in the Ravens attempt to get rid of Joe Flacco. Peter thinks the Ravens would never tag Flacco and then try to sign him to a long-term deal if Flacco doesn't sign the tender. Peter is very clear from what he said last week that the Ravens will be trying to trade Flacco and get a stud like Alex Smith or Matt Flynn to compete with Tyrod Taylor for the starting quarterback spot.

5. I think the Lions have to draft better, and that was driven home with the recent release of the 2011 second-round receiver Young, who, in case you missed it, is God's gift to football. You can't go wasting second-round picks in a division with the Packers, Bears and Vikings.

I guess there are other divisions where a team can waste second round picks? I wonder which divisions those are?

7. I think the Dwight Freeney release had the league buzzing over the weekend. One GM who was very interested already in former Giant pass rusher Osi Umenyiora told me Freeney would leapfrog Umenyiora on his free-agent board. Assuming he wants to play for a Super Bowl contender, Freeney, who turns 33 tomorrow, would be smartest to take a contract that has minimal guarantees and maximum performance incentives. 

(Dwight Freeney calling his agent) "Get me a contract with low guaranteed money and some good incentives."

(Freeney's agent) "What if I can get you a good amount of guaranteed money and fewer incentives? You would be changing teams, defenses and your numbers are a bit down from your usual higher standard. I feel like we need to get you more guaranteed money."

(Dwight Freeney) "I don't want guaranteed money. Make sure I have to work for it and the incentives are worth a lot, but very hard to reach."

(Agent fires Freeney)

He's missed but two games due to injury in the last three years, but teams will be skeptical of how much he has left, considering his last two seasons produced a pedestrian 13.5 sacks.

I wouldn't say 13.5 sacks is pedestrian overall, but it isn't up to Freeney's normal standard. I am sure Peter King is very, very sure the Patriots are going to sign Freeney.

9. I think the Ravens would be the luckiest team in round one if the mayhem of the college football postseason somehow, some way, pushed either linebacker Alec Ogletree or Manti Te'o down to No. 32 in the first round. GM Ozzie Newsome would make sure the Ravens' draft rep at Radio City had his sneakers on, so he could sprint to the podium with the card of either name.

That's only if the Patriots don't draft both players with one draft pick first, of course.

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

This is as opposed to the football-related airline rankings we just had the pleasure of viewing.

c. Somehow I've caught a virus that I can't shake, and so the two weeks since the Super Bowl -- even including three days away doing nothing but reading -- I've been fairly out of it. Sorry for the shorter columns the last couple of weeks.

Trust me, it's perfectly fine. I'd rather have a MMQB with less filler and more material that is football-relevant in the NFL offseason.

h. Coffeenerdness: Took my recyclable Starbucks cup in for a latte the other day, and the guy at the register wrote down my order on a regular paper cup. "No,'' I said. "I've got the recyclable cup." The guy said he understood, put the paper cup inside the recyclable one, and the barista made the drink -- inside the recyclable cup -- and then threw the paper cup away. "That's ... not ... exactly ... what I had in mind when I bought this recyclable cup,'' I said,

Peter tries so hard to be a good world citizen, but the world just keeps getting in his way. Of course if the barista had gotten Peter's order wrong because he had not written the order down then Peter would be pissed off the order got wrong, and then complain about it in MMQB. So either way this barista loses. He writes the order down in a fashion Peter doesn't like, Peter complains, while if he forgets the order and gives Peter the wrong coffee, Peter complains.

but the barista had nine more drinks to make, and so I just walked out. Learned my lesson a couple days later -- had the barista write in permanent marker my usual order on the side of the recyclable cup.

Or Peter could have just taken the time to write his usual order on the side of his coffee cup himself. I guess doing a little bit of work and writing down his own order was out of the question.

The Adieu Haiku

The Scouting Combine,
in Indianapolis:
Rev up, hype machine.

And of course Peter will be there to help rev up the hype machine he so desperately passively-aggressively criticizes. 

9 comments If a Tree Falls in a Forest, Can It Fall on Gregg Easterbrook?

Last week Gregg Easterbrook revealed he believes all of these regular season games the Broncos are winning the regular season could affect their ability to win the Super Bowl this year. His reasoning was something about the Colts teams with Peyton Manning only won one Super Bowl while winning a lot of regular season games and he is afraid the Broncos with Peyton Manning will do the same thing. I don't know, the playoffs can be kind of a crap shoot, so I don't think there is such thing as winning too many regular season games. Gregg also struggled with the idea of neurons and how they affect the human body. He thought everyone on the show "Revolution" should implode due to neurons affecting their body---you know what, let's just say Gregg criticized a science fiction show for its lack of accuracy and leave it at that. This week Gregg notices the Patriots have a pretty powerful offense, though he doesn't reveal exactly how this affects his belief the Patriots are still being punished for Spygate and may never win a Super Bowl again due to what he sees (saw?) as their cheating ways. Oh, and Gregg criticizes weasel college coaches while ignoring the fact two weasel coaches are meeting in BCS National Title game.

Mooooooo … that's the sound the Houston Texans' logo made as the team was roped and branded by the New England Patriots on "Monday Night Football." At rodeos, the steer puts up a fight.

I don't know how much Gregg gets paid to write TMQ, but if it is $25 per column then it is just too much money.

Teams that face Houston will study film of how the Flying Elvii shut the Texans down, forcing them to play from behind, which Houston isn't built to do.

All NFL teams have to do now is get out to a 21 point lead over the Texans. If only teams had thought of this strategy previous to seeing the Patriots employ the strategy then the Texans would not have won a game yet this year. Score as many points as possible, why didn't anyone else think of that? So what Gregg states is true, but painfully obvious. The Texans don't like to play from behind, but good luck getting a big lead on them.

Holding the ball -- New England recorded 27 first downs -- also kept the Moo Cows' offense on the sidelines, causing the Texans to press when they did have possession.

The Texans had 19 first downs and kept the ball for 29:11 in this game. The Patriots had 27 first downs and had the ball 30:49 of this game. The Patriots did a good job keeping the Texans offense on the sidelines but the time of possession was nearly equal. I hate it when statistics ruin assumptions.

In 2007, the Patriots set the NFL's single-season scoring record, averaging 37 points per game. This year's New England offense is nearly as good, averaging 36 points per game. By some measures this year's Patriots are superior -- plus-24 for turnovers versus plus-16 in 2007, 28 first downs per game versus 25 per in 2007. 

"First downs per game" is kind of a dumb way to determine how good a team's offense is. A team could score a touchdown on every pass they throw and have zero first downs in a game. What is remarkable is that Gregg shows us exactly why "first downs per game" is a potentially faulty measure of an offense's ability in his next sentence, yet is too dumb to see how he just showed the fallacy of his own statistic.

The 2007 New England offense featured quick-strike deep passes; the 2012 iteration is seventh in the NFL in rushing, and therefore controls the ball better.

Right, the Patriots average more first downs per game in 2012 because they may not be as much of a quick-strike team as they were in 2007. So "first downs per game" is probably not an accurate measure of an offense's prowess all of the time.

Right now, the New England offense rules the NFL. Yet it starts more undrafted free agents (Wes Welker, Ryan Wendell, Danny Woodhead) than first-round choices (Nate Solder, Logan Mankins).

It's a convenient time to do this, because Gregg's theory that undrafted players are better NFL players than highly drafted players seems true, so now Gregg is going to go on a "look at how many undrafted players Team X starts" rant. What Gregg fails to mention is the Patriots best running back is a second round pick (and he is the listed starter on the Patriots depth chart) and the defense has quite a few first and second round picks starting for them. They have six first or second round draft picks on defense if I am counting correctly.

The quarterback is a sixth-round selection who ousted the first overall choice in the draft.

How incredibly misleading this statement is. Drew Bledsoe was "ousted" as the New England Patriots starting quarterback because he got injured, then was traded from the Patriots after having an excellent, almost Hall-of-Fame-worthy career with New England. But to Gregg, Tom Brady simply ousted the first overall choice in the 1993 draft and there is no nuance in there at all. Let's ignore Drew Bledsoe's excellent career in order to help prove a point Gregg Easterbrook wants to make.

Against Houston, the Patriots got long touchdown catches from two players shown the door by the rest of the league (Brandon Lloyd, cut by four teams; Donte' Stallworth, cut by five teams).

Gregg conveniently leaves out Stallworth is a first round pick and has signed two contracts over his career for over $30 million each, not to mention his contract was terminated by the Browns because he was convicted of manslaughter. He killed someone while driving his car, which means he was "cut" by Gregg Easterbrook. Again, no nuance is required. Leave out the facts that don't support Gregg's point.

In an NFL in which firing assistant coaches is a New Year's Day tradition, Dante Scarnecchia has been the Pats' offensive line coach since Bill Belichick arrived.

It has helped Scarnecchia keep his job that the Patriots offensive line has always performed very well and there was no need to fire him. Success usually helps a coach keep his job.

Watch Patriots line film, and what you won't see is an offensive lineman standing around doing nothing. On almost any NFL snap, even on good teams, there's at least one offensive lineman who brushed his man then just stood there looking at the play.

"On almost any NFL snap, even on good teams, there's at least one offensive lineman who brushed his man then just stood there looking at the play."

Wow, does Gregg really convince himself his bullshit statements are true? So on nearly every single NFL play there is one offensive lineman who is doing nearly nothing? I find this to be false and Gregg has no proof his statement is true. It's just another example of him lying to his readers by making assumptions based on how he wants the NFL to be.

"Standing in" was seen as proof of quarterback manhood. Marino showed that the quick release is the smarter way -- just get rid of the ball to the first guy who's open, or get rid of the ball, period.

Gregg Eastebrook should be a quarterbacks coach. He's so knowledgeable. So you mean a quarterback needs to throw the ball to the open man or get rid of the ball if he is going to get sacked? Do tell more stories about this revolutionary way of playing quarterback that only Gregg Easterbrook knows of (Gregg assumes he is the only one to think of this revolutionary way of playing quarterback simply because he refuses to do research that would prove otherwise).

The Patriots change looks both between games and during games.

You mean the Patriots change strategies during AND after a game? They must be the only NFL team to ever do this...unless you count all of the other NFL teams that do this on a weekly basis. The Patriots simply have the personnel to do it better and just do it better overall.

The New England offense is so confident and proficient that often the primary receiver isn't covered by anyone. Against the Jets on Thanksgiving, no one covered Welker -- one of football's all-time most productive receivers -- at the goal line. Against Houston, no one covered Hernandez at the goal line.

So twice over an NFL season is considered "often?" Oh that's right, Gregg is making shit up as he is prone to do. I guess we can say the Patriots "often" beat the Texans on Monday Night Football. They did it once, so that's "often" apparently.

The football gods are smiling on this offense.

Well, until the Patriots lose in the playoffs at which point Gregg will claim the football gods were not smiling on the Patriots because of Spygate.

Many high-scoring offenses -- the Oregon Ducks in 2010, the 2005 Colts, the Jim Kelly Buffalo Bills -- are unstoppable in the regular season when defenses are giving 90 percent, then cool off in the postseason, when defenses give 100 percent.

The amount of facts that Gregg makes up in the course of a column is astounding. So far in this column Gregg has claimed the Patriots primary receiver is "often" left completely uncovered, on nearly every single play in the NFL once offensive lineman is standing around doing nothing, and defenses only give 90% during the regular season. I don't understand how ESPN lets one of their columnists absolutely just make things up. I'm not a professional writer, but when someone makes up a fact I call that "lying," which the last time I checked is not encouraged in sports journalism.

We'll see if the Patriots' attack is once again unstoppable during the regular season, then declines in January.

Yes, we'll see if the Patriots' attack "declines" in January, much like it didn't do last year when they were in the Super Bowl.

As for the Moo Cows -- they trailed 21-0 in the third quarter and punted on fourth-and-1. TMQ wrote the words "game over" in his notebook. Who cares if Houston was on its own 18? Who cares if Houston went for it on fourth down and failed twice in the first half?

Who cares? Apparently Gregg cares since he is constantly telling us that "fortune favors the bold" and reminding us that when a coach chooses to go for it on fourth down it tells his team that he is super-serious about winning the game and it makes his team play better. Of course when a team does go for it on fourth down and fails, Gregg always has another fourth down attempt that team should have tried to convert and explains THAT TIME this team didn't go for it on fourth down is the reason they lost the game. As it pertaint to this situation, ignore the fact they failed converting on fourth down twice in the half, it was the conversion the Texans didn't try which made a difference in the game. There's always a reason why Gregg's imaginary rules fail and it is never because the rule in itself is just stupid or doesn't work 100% of the time.

The media panel that chooses the Heisman deserves the censure for endlessly picking quarterbacks or running backs. Is it because full-time professional sportswriters truly believe only these positions matter -- or because they never look at anyone other than quarterbacks and running backs?

Even when Gregg is correct, he is wrong. The Heisman voters are blinded by seeing quarterbacks and running backs make exciting plays, yes, but if you ever look at how the Heisman vote is laid out you would see the votes are aligned with the region each candidate plays in. So the Heisman voters aren't able to watch every college game, tend to vote for the Heisman candidate in their region and usually vote for a player who has made exciting plays over the season. A sportswriter who covers the Pac-10 hasn't seen enough of Chance Warmack to know if he is the best player in the country, but he has seen enough of Johnny Manziel's highlights and statistics to know the impact Manziel has on a game.

Often NFL receivers, especially star receivers, either don't block on rushing plays or make a half-hearted push, then give up.

It's infuriating how much Gregg just makes things up. So "often" NFL receivers don't block on rushing plays or don't block very aggressively? Considering we just learned "often" means "twice" to Gregg then I guess he is probably correct. I guess this means Gregg Easterbrook often hates Jewish people and thinks they worship money above all else?

Cam Newton lined up in a college-style backfield with a tailback on one side and a fullback on the other, faked to the tailback going right on a zone-read, then ran left behind a "wham" block by the fullback, legging it 72 yards for a touchdown.

What Gregg fails to mention is Steve Smith blocked for Newton 30 yards down the field on this play, even though we all know star receivers often don't block on rushing plays or give a half-hearted push and then give up.

Sour for Baltimore was that cornerback Chris Johnson, assigned to man coverage on Garçon, simply stood there and let him run past. Johnson was busy making the high school mistake of looking into the backfield trying to guess the play, rather than staying glued to his man.

Josh Morgan ran a down-and-in, and also was open -- because cornerback Cary Williams was making the high school mistake of looking into the backfield trying to guess the play.

Though City of Tampa had five to cover three downfield, cornerback E.J. Biggers did not "keep the receiver in front of him." Biggers looked like he was concerned with stopping a quick curl for the first down; when Avant went deep, Biggers let him. But there were only 16 seconds remaining, Philadelphia had to reach the end zone: when the other team has to reach the end zone fast, keep the receiver in front of you! Sour.

These are three examples of Gregg leaving out where players were drafted because this information doesn't support a contention he is trying to prove. All three of these cornerbacks were 7th round draft picks, which you wouldn't know since Gregg didn't mention it. If these were first round picks you can bet Gregg would have mentioned their draft position. Gregg is such a liar and a deceiver. It's shame there are stupid people who fail to see his hypocrisy and cherry-picking of data.

This makes it worth bearing in mind that in the offseason the Jaguars, perennially low in NFL attendance, passed on a chance to trade for Tebow. He was available for Jacksonville's third draft choice, which instead was spent on punter Bryan Anger. He's playing OK.

Anger is fifth in the NFL in net punting, eighth in punting average, and is seventh in punts downed inside the 20 yard line. I'd say that is better than "ok," but Gregg is praying no one clicks on that link to see how full of shit he is.

But a losing team that lacks support really needed a punter more than the most popular local football player in a generation? New owner Shahid Khan was billed as a master of sports marketing.

Those damn facts get in the way again! Khan's purchase for the Jaguars team wasn't finalized until after the Jaguars had drafted Anger, so he never even had a chance to trade a 3rd round pick for Tim Tebow. But still, much like how Gregg often blames Jewish people for wrongs committed in the world, let's blame Khan for something that isn't his fault at all.

Then Gregg contemplates God and how long it took him to create Earth. This type of discussion has no place in a football column, but Gregg has to fill space so he can later brag about how long TMQ is.

My new book "The Leading Indicators" has been out three weeks, is off to a very good start in stores, and would make a better gift than lasers that drill into your head.

"The Leading Indicators" is a novel about a contemporary American family caught in the Great Recession.

It's not even close to being Christmas time yet and Gregg wants us to go out and buy gifts for our family? It's Christmas Creep! We can't buy a book sooner than a day or two before Christmas, isn't that what Gregg's constant bitching about Christmas Creep tells us?

In addition to being a promise-breaker, Bielema speaks of himself using the royal We, saying as he slunk out of Wisconsin, "We gave them three straight Big Ten championships." He wasn't referring to the Badgers, he was referring to himself. Right ho, Your Majesty!

Bielema is referring to him and his coaching staff, so therefore he uses the term "we." It makes sense as long as you don't play stupid and not want it to make sense.

TMQ's Law of Weasel Coaches holds: When you hire a coach who's only in it for himself, you get a coach who's only in it for himself.

Or you will appear in the BCS National Championship Game within a few years. You know, either way. Brian Kelly is a "weasel coach" in the eyes of Gregg Easterbrook because he broke his promises at Cincinnati to go Notre Dame and Nick Saban is a "weasel coach" because he broke his promises to the Miami Dolphins to coach at Alabama. When hiring a weasel coach you will get a coach who is out for himself or you will get a coach that helps your college appear in the BCS National Championship Game.

So Tuberville looked someone in the eye, gave his word, and one day later broke his word. Why does the University of Cincinnati want to hire a head coach whose word means nothing?

Because Tuberville wins games and Cincinnati just lost their head coach to the University of Tennessee. What is their other option, hire a coach with no head coaching experience or isn't signed to a contract? Most head coaches with experience and are worth a shit are signed to a contract with another school, so college teams have to lure coaches under contract to coach their team. Gregg lives in this fantasy world where the only coaches who change teams are those not under contract, but if a coach is any good then he will be under contract. So for that coach to take another job he has to be a "weasel coach." Tommy Tuberville wins football games, which is what keeps athletic directors employed. Is Gregg really this stupid to think colleges give a shit about a coach giving "his word?" College coaches come and go, it doesn't make it right, but Cincinnati just lost their head coach to another college and wanted to hire a competent coach for their team.

San Diego leading 27-10, the Chargers ran a successful fake punt on fourth-and-2 from their own 28. Sweet! Fourth-and-short is always the best time to fake a kick. 

I guess this is as opposed to faking a kick on first or second down. I like how Gregg acts like he is telling us something when what he is saying is obvious. You mean it is easier to convert a fourth-and-short than a fourth-and-long? No way, that is very interesting, please tell me more.

Reader Paul Lowman of Kenosha, Wis., reports, "The new Superman flick 'Man of Steel' is included in this list of Most Disappointing Movies of 2012, though won't be released until 2013."

No, no, no. That's not what the article stated. Learn to read shithead, and quit lying about what articles are saying while hoping no one clicks on the link you provided. "Man of Steel" wasn't listed as a disappointing movie, but was listed as a flick that was pushed to 2013. Reading is FUN-damental.

Harbaugh could have gone for two confident that even if the Ravens missed, Mike Shanahan would have been afraid to go for two at 27-26, because then he would have been blamed for a Redskins lose. 

Yes, he would have been blamed for a Redskins lose. What's a "lose" again? For a guy who brags about what a great novel writer he is in TMQ, Gregg's editorial skills seem lax here. If I were Gregg, I would say "often" he has grammatical errors in his columns.

The Football Gods Chortled No. 3: Buffalo and City of Tampa both lost at home by surrendering last-second touchdowns. Bills and Bucs defenders dropped what looked like easy interceptions on the down before the opponents' win.

So why would the football gods "chortle?" Didn't the football gods make these players drop the easy interceptions, since Gregg seems to believe football gods control the outcome of games when a team doesn't go for it on fourth down? So why would they chortle (and seriously, who the fuck "chortles" anymore?) when their plan worked and the Bills/Buccaneers lost?

Why do I ask such stupid questions that really have no answer?

Next Week: Shahid Khan calls the Jaguars' 2-11 record "a bit of a sticky wicket." 

I guess this is supposed to be funny because Khan is Pakistani. I should just be happy Gregg didn't use a slur against people of Jewish origin since he "often" shows his hatred for those of the Jewish faith. 

14 comments Dan Shaughnessy Goes Full Douche-tastic, Reminds Us How Awesome Boston Is

Dan Shaughnessy has basically written an entire column for CNNSI.com that talks about how great Boston sports have been over the last decade. He's right. Boston sports teams have won quite a few championships, including one in hockey, which counts as a major sport again to Dan now that the Boston Bruins have a quality team. There is no point to this article, other than to remind us all that Boston sports have been dominant of late. There is no insight, other than the fact Dan Shaughnessy is as unlikeable as his columns make him seem, and there is certainly no point to this article. But yet, the article was written anyway for no apparent reason.

I'm going to go ahead and put the "a lot of cursing" label on this post because I can only answer a column with no inherent value with retorts and words with no inherent value.

The rest of the country must be sick of us in Boston.

Not really. I'm sick of pathetic Boston-related writers making every single thing about their Boston-area teams. I'm not sure if you have heard or not, but MLB had a bad year last year, this just happened to coincide with the Red Sox not making the playoffs. Also, hockey is big again, which just happens to coincide with the Bruins being a competitive team again. It's crazy how this works.

We have all the champions. We have all the trophies.

I think "all" is overstating it a bit. I'm picking nits, but it isn't like any team other than the Bruins have won a championship in the last two years. The Celtics haven't won a championship since 2008, the Red Sox haven't won since 2007, and the Patriots haven't won since 2005. So only one major trophy currently resides in Boston. So saying Boston has "all" the trophies is inaccurate. They've won quite a few recently, but it isn't like any other major trophy resides in Boston right now.

And yes, I realize I just set Boston up for 4 championships in the next calendar year. Your welcome Boston. I have just given you 4 championships in the next year by writing this post.

Sorry. No brag, just fact.

No, it is bragging because this isn't a fact. A fact would mean the Boston-area teams have ALL of the trophies, which is not true. Only one Boston team in major sports (and hockey is a major sport in Boston now because the Bruins won the Stanley Cup) has a championship trophy right now. So talking about how many trophies your city has is accurate, but saying the city has "all" of the trophies is factually inaccurate, which means this article is probably just Dan bragging.

The Boston Bruins won the Stanley Cup in Vancouver last week, completing Boston's Grand Slam of North American sports. In seven years.

So what's your point? That's great for the city of Boston. What's the point of all this? Boston has had a great run. Dan is a sportswriter, it is his job to write about sports in the city of Boston, not gloat. Yet, gloat he does...in his own insufferable way.

No city has ever sprayed so much Champagne in so few seasons. Overall, it's seven championships since February 2002.

I am WAY too lazy to determine if this is the most champagne sprayed in so few seasons, but I am going out on a limb and say this is not true, though I have no proof.

Also, don't you love how the dates Dan is using change based on what statistic he is trying to brag about? Just a few sentences ago, it was a span of seven years he was using as the Grand Slam of majors and now he is going back to 2002 to talk about how awesome Boston sports have been since then. He doesn't want to go back in time too far back from 2002 though. Then his data doesn't look quite as good.

Sounds like Dan is more of a fan than a journalist, doesn't it?

Our confetti is knee deep. The tires on our parade Duck Boats are balding.

As is the player's hair on your basketball team! Rim shot! The Celtics are old!

From Brady to Big Papi to the Big Ticket to Big Z. We are the champions.

I hope someone puts laxatives in Dan's coffee. This isn't journalism, this is a 24 year old fan bragging about his favorite team's exploits. So why did CNNSI.com allow this to be printed? What is gained from reading this?

There's never been anything like it. Want a little perspective? Try this: our local team with the longest championship drought is now the New England Patriots. They haven't won a Lombardi trophy since way back in 2005. What's wrong with those slackers?

I get it! It's a joke. Funny!

How does Dan get to write? Who reads what he writes and says, "Holy shit, that's some top notch journalism right there." Yet, he gets to write for a local newspaper AND a national sports site. Life isn't fair.

Here's another nugget: our four championship coaches are still in office -- hoodie Bill Belichick, Terry Francona, Doc Rivers and Claude Julien. This has never happened anywhere.

Well that's because, as Dan stated earlier, few teams have won four titles in four sports over a short time span. It's impressive. So in such a short span of time I wouldn't expect the head coach or manager of a successful team to change.

A club of four. All champs. All still in power.

Your perm. Still has. All of its original bounce.

They support one another. Francona wore a Bruins jersey to his pregame press conference when the Milwaukee Brewers came to Fenway last Friday.

When Francona was on a long road trip on the West Coast, Bill Belichick offered to go Francona's house and have sex with his wife. No big deal to him. He'll do what it takes. These four guys will do ANYTHING for each other...except Francona, Belichick and Julien still refuse to hold a conversation with Austin Rivers even though Doc Rivers insist they try. That kid just seems like an asshole to them.

Francona was unable to attend any Bruins playoff games because he's in season. But Rivers went to the Garden, conceded he knows little about hockey, then said he was impressed by the beer consumption of the Hub Hockey Krishnas.

Not only is Boston the greatest city of champions if you count the last 7-9 years and don't include any other time span, their fans drink more beer than any other fans because they care more about their team.

Belichick, meanwhile, was a regular on Causeway Street, appeared on the JumboTron, and was honored as "Bruins Fan of the Game'' during the Eastern Conference Final against Tampa Bay.

An honor I am sure he earned by standing up all game and vocally cheering the Bruins team very loudly and not simply because he is the head coach of the NFL team in town and the person who runs the JumboTron felt like highlighting that Bill Belichick was at the hockey game.

In our town, the Bruins' championship quest most closely resembled the Red Sox's biblical journey to the World Series title in 2004.

The Bruins winning the Stanley Cup doesn't resemble the Red Sox journey at all. Also, I just re-read the Bible and nowhere in there can I find anything about the Red Sox winning a World Series in 2007. I guess that wasn't a very special team. Leviticus 16:2 does say Jesus was a huge Patriots fan though and I am pretty sure Paul wrote a letter about the Red Sox run to the World Series title in 2004 at some point...but nothing about the Red Sox winning the World Series.

The Sox hadn't won in 86 years, the Bruins 39 years. There was a full eclipse of the moon on the night of both team's clinchers.

Here's another coincidence. The same hack writer, we'll call him Shan Danaughnessy, wrote about both of these title victories! Then, as described in the Bible, this writer shall talk about this 2004 Red Sox World Series win until all patience with him has run out among the people of the lands, at which point he will be banished into the desert.

The Sox of '04 were recovering from the hideous ALCS loss to the Yankees in Game 7 of 2003. Grady Little forgot to pull Pedro Martinez

He "forgot" to pull Pedro Martinez? Was he ordering a pizza or something? It isn't like Little just absentmindedly didn't take Martinez out of the game because he was busy, he made a concerted decision to leave Pedro in the game.

Also, why does Dan Shaughnessy recap the Red Sox 2004 World Series win in every single article he writes? Nobody is buying your stupid books anymore Dan, no matter how hard you try.

and the Sox blew a 5-2 lead in the eighth, then lost when Aaron Boone homered in the 11th.

Aaron Boone then blew out his ACL over the summer, which wasn't an accident, but willed to happen by Red Sox Nation. They have that power you know.

In 2010, the Bruins led the Philadelphia Flyers, three-games-to-zero, then lost four straight. In Game 7 at home, the B's led 3-0, but lost, 4-3. It was bad.

Oh I get it. The similarity in the 2004 Red Sox team and the 2011 Bruins team is the 2003 Red Sox lost Game 7, while the 2010 Bruins team blew a 3-0 deficit. That's pretty much the same thing. THEN the next year, in an eerie similarity between these two teams, the 2004 Red Sox came back from a 3-0 deficit, while the Bruins won the Stanley Cup in a Game 7. It's like these two teams were destined to play in the same city. THEN, in an even more eerie coincidence, both the 2004 Red Sox and 2011 Bruins had players with facial hair on their roster. This was destiny as well.

The Sox of '04 trailed the Yankees three-games-to-zero, then came back and won. The Bruins of '11 lost their first two games (both at home) of the first round series against Montreal, then won. They trailed the heavily-favored Canucks two-games-to-zero in the Cup final, then won.

I guess Dan Shaughnessy figures if CNNSI.com is going to let him write an entire article being an unsufferable douchebag and brag about how great Boston sports are, and we all know he will talk about the 2004 Red Sox team, he may as well sttttttttttttrrrrrrrrrrrrretch to get a comparison between the 2004 Red Sox and the 2011 Bruins. I'm just surprised he didn't tie this into the 2008 Celtics somehow.

Good times never seemed so good.

That's from "Sweet Caroline!" The Red Sox play that song at their home games! Now, all Dan has to do is make up a fake curse in an effort to sell books and he can call it a day.

Not to rub it in, but things are looking pretty good for the future, too.

Absolutely. This doesn't sound like bragging at all, nor is discussing how great the future looks for the Boston-area teams rubbing anything in. This is a sportswriter writing this by the way. Not a fan of the Boston-area teams, but a sportswriter. Just thought I would clear up the confusion I was personally having in case someone else was confused too. Even most Boston sports team-based blogs don't have this much homer-ism and bravado contained in them.

Despite a slow start, the Red Sox have the best record in the American League and look like favorites to win the whole thing for the third time since 2004.

Favorites as determined by Dan Shaughnessy. My "favorite" at this point is still the Philadelphia Phillies, they have the best record in the American and National League.

I know if he could read what I just wrote, Dan Shaughnessy would say, "The National what?" He thinks to win the World Series you just have to beat the Yankees in the playoffs.

The Patriots are coming off a 14-2 campaign, have a raft of draft picks, and figure to benefit from the lockout because of the brilliance of the Belichick system.

The Bruins have a young roster, a lot of signed players and room under the cap.

"A young roster, a lot of signed players, and room under the cap." Let's not get too specific here, Dan.

The Bruins had the 11th (or 15th depending on what you believe) oldest team in the NHL this year. They appear to be 23rd in cap space. I don't know much about hockey, but I get the feeling Dan doesn't either.

At this hour, the Celtics are probably the longest shots to get back to the championship circle. But they still have three Hall of Famers, plus an All-Star point guard in Rajon Rondo.

They have three Hall of Famers who are considered Hall of Famers right now because (a) they are older and (b) they are declining...the Celtics have no real center, and they play in the Eastern Conference which has two teams clearly on the rise (Chicago and Miami). So I am not sure the Celtics are on the rise nor does saying how many Hall of Famers prove much but to show how good these players on Celtics used to be, but may not be in the future.

It's been difficult to explain this to New England youngsters who have never had to wait. A teenager in Greater Boston knows only championships.

10 years ago Dan Shaughnessy bitched about how cursed the Boston-area was, now he is bitching they have too many championships and "the kids" don't know what it is like to have failure.

There's no Curse of the Bambino,

There never was. You made it up to sell books.

no pathetic Patriots of the 1990s,

They only made ONE Super Bowl. How pathetic!

no 22-year Celtic drought.

A 22 year drought? How were there not mass suicides in the Boston area? What human being could survive going 22 years without a championship from an NBA team?

The dark days of Butch Hobson, Rod Rust, Rick Pitino and Dave Lewis are far behind us. Today it's all sellouts, balloons and parades.

"Us." I think this is a case where a writer over-identifies with the teams he is writing about.

Truly, we're feeling a little guilty about all this success.

I mean this in the nicest possible way, but you can shove this sentence up your ass. Yes, shove this non-tangible object up your ass. Sure, it may seem impossible, but not as impossible as being a Boston sports fan in the 90's!

Our hearts bleed for folks in Cleveland, who haven't won anything since ... 1964. Ouch.

In your face Cleveland! Dan will patronize you with how much success "his" teams have had compared to yours.

Why should we have so much when some have so little?

Why did this article get written? What purpose did it serve?

Congratulations Dan Shaughnessy! You have written the least substantive article for the year 2011 so far...and that's saying a lot.

7 comments MMQB Review: Tender, Juicy NFL Nuggets Edition

I haven't covered MMQB in a few months or so after having done MMQB every single week for probably two years. I enjoyed doing it, but it was hard to write and post it Monday morning. I figured I may as well check back up with Peter and see what is on his mind during the lockout. As I expected, he is developing a new white quarterback crush (Jake Locker---he's like a younger, sexier version of Brett Favre for Peter) and handing out NFL nuggets for us all to chew on and spit into the trash. The lockout hasn't been good for Peter's MMQB. I can feel him stretching for things to discuss.

Many of you have written or tweeted to ask whether I'll be covering more of the labor stuff in this space over the next month or so, while the NFL and its players joust verbally and make their case in a St. Louis courtroom. My answer is simple: I'm going to write about football as much as possible, as long as it is relevant, along with some labor and the other cornucopia of stuff you read here.

"I gotta kill space people and complaints about free coffee, having to travel with the public and oh yeah, football related items, can only cover so much space."

We're just lucky Peter isn't using MMQB as his public diary to bitch about the Red Sox and how inconvenient it is to travel among other humans who aren't refined and perfect as Peter himself is.

I'll write labor when it seems important, and when I think you'll care. I get the feeling it alternately angers and bores you, from the feedback you send me.

Anytime Peter says something like this you know the next thing he types will be about the lockout or whatever topic he says we don't want to hear about. It is how he works.

That said, on Sunday, Mike Florio of ProFootballTalk.com reported he's hearing "initial rumblings'' that if the league loses its appeal to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals and is forced to open its doors for business sometime this summer, the owners may completely shut down business operations until the players cave and agree to a labor deal.

And...........there we go.

For now, there's the residue of one of the most interesting drafts in years to discuss, an email from Mike McGuire, a sports connection to a California pulpit. Thought that might get your interest.

Nope, it didn't.

If I were Jake Locker, I'd be ready for Accuracyball in training camp.

Well, I think ol' Jake will be just fine as long as he has his hunting dog and packs some extra guts and grit into his camouflage bag he will carry to training camp. Jake don't need no accuracy, he has that something special other quarterbacks in this draft don't have. I'm still searching for what that is, but I have heard repeatedly he has it...whatever IT is.

I'm thinking back to the three years Chris Palmer -- Tennessee's new offensive coordinator under coach Mike Munchak -- coached Eli Manning with the Giants, 2007 through 2009. When Palmer arrived, Manning had completed three seasons in the NFL. Three inaccurate seasons, with a completion percentage of just 54.0.

Manning's final season without Palmer he had a completion percentage of 57.7%. It dipped the year after Palmer came to New York to 56.1%. I don't know if this means anything, but I thought I would mention it.

Palmer set up flags at different distances and had Manning throw quickly to try to hit the flags. Maybe it was play-calling, maybe it was simple NFL maturations, and maybe a little bit was the flags, but in Palmer's three years with Manning, his completion rate rose from 56.1 in 2007 to 60.3 and 62.3 the following two years.

It was obviously the flags that helped Manning's completion percentage out. Which explains exactly why his completion percentage decreased slightly for one year upon using the flags in practice and then shot up after that. It had nothing to do with Manning's receivers or his maturation. It was the flags---even just slightly. I don't have a problem with the "flags" argument overall, I have a problem with any type of Locker-Eli Manning comparison from college to the NFL. Peter ignores Manning's completion percentage in college (60.8&) as a reference point as to where Manning started off, accuracy wise, in the NFL.

What a lazy comparison. Locker is a fairly inaccurate quarterback and has been pretty much his entire time at Washington. We can all argue about WHY Locker was fairly inaccurate, it doesn't matter too much. So Peter compares Locker to Eli Manning as a guy who can have his accuracy improved in the NFL using flags to throw the ball to, just like Eli's accuracy improved doing this. What Peter fails to think about is what kind of passer Manning was coming out of college. The three full seasons Eli played quarterback at Ol' Miss his completion percentage was 63.5%, 58.0%, and 62.0%. So he was already an accurate passer coming out of college, so the flags helped him get back to where he was in college potentially. Locker's top completion percentage in college for a full season was 58.2%. So this isn't a great comparison because the quarterbacks were starting at different points in regard to completion percentage upon entering the NFL. Manning re-learned to be accurate while Locker has to learn to be accurate.

I asked Reinfeldt how a quarterback who was a 54-percent passer in college could be fixed in the NFL. The perception, of course, is that accuracy is usually difficult to improve, particularly when the pass-rush and secondary are better at the next level.

"I think there are things you can do to improve,'' he said. "That's one of the things we studied. Jay Cutler went from 57 in college to 61 [percent completion]. Brett Favre went from 53 to 63; Mark Brunell from 52 to 59.

Yes, accuracy can be improved. I'm not arguing Locker can't improve this or he won't improve his accuracy. I will say Mark Brunell had a completion percentage of 46.6% his sophomore year at Washington, which seemed to hold his average overall completion percentage down in college and Jay Cutler was a 59.1% and 61.0% passer over his last two years at Vanderbilt. So that leaves the lazy comparison of Locker to Favre. It is who Locker gets compared to on a regular basis and it has grown a bit tiresome for me. Sure, maybe Locker can develop into another Favre player, but it is one of those quarterback comparisons or projections that annoys me. There are others, as those who decide to keep reading this post will see.

The 49ers had pick number 45 and wanted Nevada quarterback Colin Kaepernick. As I wrote in SI this week, San Francisco offered to give New England third-round picks this year and next to move from 45 to 33 to get Kaepernick; New England wanted a two and a three. Too rich for 49er GM Trent Baalke's blood. So Baalke let the pick pass, even though he knew it might cost him Kaepernick, because Oakland was trying to move up for him too. New England ended up making the pick (cornerback Ras-I Dowling), and the 49ers turned their attention to the pick following Cincinnati's --Denver, at 36. Baalke offered fourth- and fifth-round picks this year. Denver accepted. The 49ers got Kaepernick, and instead of paying a two and a three for him, they paid a four and a five.

It has gotten to the point in MMQB where Peter King is repeating stories he has already told the subscribers of Sports Illustrated. Sure, not everyone who reads MMQB gets Sports Illustrated, but I still think it is lazy.

Moral of the story? There are two. Don't panic for any player, particularly one you're not positive will turn into a cornerstone player for you.

So the 49ers and Bengals are not sure Kaepernick and Dalton will be franchise cornerstones for them and that is why they didn't panic? Is that what Peter is saying? Also, while the 49ers and Bengals did a good job of not going in a panic to get either quarterback, neither quarterback (unless you listened to the "experts," specifically Peter King) were projected to go in the 1st round. So neither franchise probably got in a panic because they knew there was a good chance the quarterbacks would land to them. Even then, while the 49ers didn't panic to get Kaepernick, they did trade up to get him.

I believe we're going to look back on this draft in five years and think one of the most compelling stories was Ryan Mallett. Think of it. In a year when there's a major premium on rookies being NFL-ready (with the lockout obviously preventing rookies from training to play right away), the most NFL-ready quarterback in the draft was picked 74th

Is Mallett the most NFL-ready quarterback? I'm just wondering what kind of proof or verification Peter King has for this statement, other than his opinion he is passing off as a fact. Mallett ran a pro-style offense at Arkansas, but that doesn't mean he is the most pro-ready quarterback in the draft. Guess who ran a pro-style offense in college, was considered someone who could make an easy transition and was drafted in 2010? Jimmy Clausen. How'd that turn out so far? So if I were Peter King I would be wary of just blindly saying Ryan Mallett is the most NFL-ready quarterback in the draft simply because he played in a pro-style offense in college. More goes into being ready for the NFL than the type of offense a quarterback played in college.

That isn't to say he's going to be a great pro. Who knows if he will be? But the value at 74 for a player of his stature is pretty hard to ignore.

I wonder if this pick made Peter King break out with his Troy Brown Patriots jersey due to bursting with pride at the value of this pick?

Now Peter gives more information about why this was such a great pick for the Patriots. We all know he can't go an entire MMQB without a chart or some long discussion about the Patriots. The value of a player like Mallett is hard to ignore, but there has to be a reason the other teams passed on him repeatedly.

Aaron Schatz of FootballOutsiders.com made this point: With the increased emphasis on concussion awareness, imagine if Tom Brady gets one in the next two or three years and has to sit out a week. I'd feel better having a trained Ryan Mallett on my bench competing with Brian Hoyer to play rather than just Hoyer.

What a great move by the Patriots! They are probably the only team in the NFL smart enough to try and find a competent backup quarterback through the draft. This seems like common sense, do we really need to really on an expert like Aaron Schatz to say it is a good idea to upgrade the backup quarterback position?

So Ryan Mallett doesn't just have value as a player the Patriots can develop and possibly spin off for a first-round draft pick three years from now. He also has value because he gives the Patriots a stronger backup quarterback in case Brady takes an unfortunate hard hit at midseason.''

So the Patriots may have drafted a quarterback not just for trade purposes, but to actually use him as the backup quarterback? Do other NFL teams know this is possible? This is exactly why I read MMQB every week, to read information on how the Patriots are revolutionizing the NFL and the world with the idea of drafting a quarterback to use as a competent backup.

One: His offense at Arkansas has much in common with what the Patriots will run in New England -- thanks to college coach Bobby Petrino. "I grew up in Jacksonville with Tom Coughlin," Petrino told Rapoport, "which ties back to [Bill] Parcells. Like, I heard [Tom] Brady call the play on TV: '136 Dual Y Choice.' That's the exact same way we would call that play. So, there's certain things that are going to be real easy carry-over, because of the system we use. And he had responsibilities in protections, which obviously in the NFL, you have to do. We did protections very similar to the way he'll do it there."

Two: He got coached hard by Petrino, and he'll get coached hard by the Patriots. "I don't think he'll be shocked at how he has to prepare,'' Petrino said.

Hold on a second...Tom Brady called the play "136 Dual Y Choice?" I thought all NFL plays had the verbiage like "flip right, double-X, Jet, 36 counter, naked waggle, X-7, X-quarter," isn't that what Jon Gruden seemed to make everyone think when working with Cam Newton? Just like Gruden made it seem to Blaine Gabbert in his ESPN interview with him that NFL teams don't pass from the shotgun very often (he essentially called Gabbert a wimp for passing from the shotgun), though this clearly isn't true. So I don't believe there is a play call like "136 Dual Y Choice" because NFL plays are too hard for a moron like Cam Newton to figure out. Next thing you will tell me, it will be revealed Jon Gruden never developed a quarterback in the NFL.

The play Brady called was probably "136 Dual Y Choice naked waggle, X-14, Y-17, slide right, slide left, 32 dual XYZ, fly right, fly left, flyup, protect left, fake right, triple-G in your face, dual action Z" that Tom Brady called. You know, because according to Jon Gruden there aren't NFL plays with short names like "136 Dual Y Choice."

But yes, as Peter King was saying, it seems that Ryan Mallett is prepared for the NFL and probably, just maybe, is the greatest quarterback in New England. Better than that sissy bum Tom Brady.

Postscript to the Eagles-Patriots trade: Andy Reid and Bill Belichick had that weird trade on draft day, New England trading the 193rd overall choice to Philly for pick number 194. They did it, Reid said, to keep a long streak alive of consecutive years of trades between the two teams. Well, it's a good story, and it seemed the two teams were always trading ... but it's not true.

Peter printed this fact as true in Sports Illustrated this past week. It seems he did his research after writing it for the magazine. Nice.

I met the veteran San Francisco Chronicle football beat writer, who covered the Niners and Raiders at different points, at the San Francisco draft last weekend. It was the last football assignment for White, who now is on a God assignment.

He is now writing Brett Favre's biography. This is doing God's work in the eyes of Peter King.

Fifteen.

That's how many brains the Boston University doctors studying brain tissue donated for research for football-related damage have examined, the latest being former Bears great Dave Duerson. He became the 14th former player to test positive for the toxic protein tau, which chokes off cellular life in the brain.

That reminds me of something I was told by Dr. Ann McKee, the leading neuropathologist in the BU group, who I met last fall in her office at the New England Veteran Administration. "We need more brains to study,'' she said. "Lots more.''

Can we wait for NFL veterans with concussion problems to pass away first? No? Fair enough then.

That's why every team this fall, whenever the labor strife is finished, owes it to the future of the game to urge every player to agree today to allow his brain to be studied after death for a similar condition -- no matter what mental or physical condition the player is in at the time of death.

This obviously makes sense, because asking NFL players in their 20's and 30's to donate their brains to science when they die in (hopefully their life will be this long) 40 or 50 more years at a minimum is going to help to solve the concussion problem in a half-century or so, when the research needs to be done now. Great thinking Peter. Why don't you just tell all the players to use the same helmet Aaron Rodgers uses? That helmet according to Gregg Easterbrook will NEVER allow a player to have a concussion. Good luck finding out from Easterbrook what type of helmet Rodgers uses.

And NFL alumni should hear the same plea from the Players Association and the league.

That's a better idea. The problem I see is the following...I would submit the concussion problem seems to be a much worse problem among NFL players over the last 20 years. I am not sure why there are more cases I am personally aware of during that period, possibly simply because of increased concussion awareness, but really this concussion research needs to be done now. So these players who were in the NFL over the last 20 years and played long enough to experience significant long-term effects probably are mostly going to live for another 20 more years. Maybe older players had concussions, they just weren't reported as much, but it is the newer players in the NFL today, those who will live for a few more decades, I think we can learn the most from. That's a problem as I see it.

You may know that most teams have ESPN and NFL Network on in their draft rooms during the draft, with the sound of one or the other on during the dead periods when the teams are not picking. Maybe they can find out a clue about what other teams are doing, maybe they can be entertained when they're bored.

I swear to God, there is no reason the GM of my favorite team should ever be bored during the draft. I really hope teams use NFL Network to keep updated on what other teams are doing, not because that team is bored.

When the Seahawks chose Alabama tackle James Carpenter in the first round of the draft -- an upset; many teams had second-round grades on him -- the chatter on both channels had analysts questioning the pick. Whether the analysts turn out to be right or wrong, that's not a popular thing to hear when you've just made a pick that's been 11 months of scouting in the making.

So the Seahawks muted both channels and put on Pandora, the personalized Internet radio thing, and soon had Reggae music filling the draft room.

I have two thoughts here:

1. Why does Peter have to tell us Pandora is "the personalized Internet radio thing?" Are there people who don't know what Pandora is? I guess so.

2. Were the Seahawks really not aware other teams had a second round grade on Carpenter? I am really wondering, not criticizing the Seahawks. I find it hard to believe a team would draft a player in the first round and not be aware the player was picked higher than most teams had that player. If the Seahawks drafted the player, what does it matter anyway if they hear analysts bashing the pick? I don't know why they wouldn't want to hear that if they are secure in their choice. Of course if Carpenter ends up being a great pick the talking heads on NFL Network and ESPN will never say they were wrong, so that could potentially irritate the Seahawks war room.

"Cam Newton will be the most scrutinized player in years. The experiment is on. If Newton is successful, the NFL will fundamentally change.''

-- New tweeter @CollinsworthNBC, NBC's Cris Collinsworth, on ... well, you can figure it out. Good observation.

No, the NFL will not fundamentally change. The NFL didn't fundamentally change when Mike Vick, Dante Culpepper, Tim Tebow or any other scrambling/throwing quarterback entered the league. Newton ran the ball a lot at Auburn because that is a strength of his and they wanted to win games. Cam Newton is going to have to throw the ball to be successful in the NFL, he isn't going to change the league if he is successful because he has a skill set other quarterbacks may not have, just like quarterbacks who are experts at reading defenses have a skill other quarterbacks don't have.

Newton isn't going to come in and revolutionize the position. He will come in and learn to read NFL defenses and pass the ball against NFL defenses just like any other rookie quarterback. Maybe he will succeed, maybe he will fail. Yes, Newton will be scrutinized, but I don't see the NFL fundamentally changing because to be successful in the NFL, Cam Newton will have to change some as well.

2. I think what's clear after Rashard Mendenhall and the bin Laden/Twitter dustup is that some things are not meant to be said in 140 characters. Mendenhall is not a dolt. But he can sound like one -- we all can -- in the 140-letter bursts that are the max on Twitter. What he said last week, in three tweets,

You gotta love Peter King. He says 140 words isn't enough to get your thoughts across, then says Rashard Mendenhall wrote three Tweets. So is 420 words enough, Peter? How many words is enough? More importantly, why do we give a shit about what Mendenhall thinks about Osama bin Laden and 9/11? I think people just want to be offended sometimes. I will care about Rashard Mendenhall's thoughts on 9/11 when I care about what 99% of athletes think about anything not sports-related.

in three tweets, is that he didn't like celebrating a man's death, he didn't think it was fair to judge bin Laden without knowing him, and he questioned whether aircraft alone were to blame for the downing of the Twin Towers.

To think that people in this country -- those who lost loved ones, those who had family or friends sent overseas to fight al Queda -- wouldn't respond angrily to 140-character opinions, which, right or wrong, appeared almost cavalier in their presentation, is not very thoughtful.

Obviously these were stupid comments. Some comments are so stupid you just have to ignore them. I think these comments were of this type.

I think before we consign Wade Phillips to coaching hell for even thinking of switching Mario Williams from defensive end to outside linebacker in his new Houston 3-4 defense, let's give him the benefit of the doubt. Williams had been very good, but not all-world, in his first five seasons as a 4-3 end, averaging 9.6 sacks a year. Phillips thinks Williams, playing the same spot DeMarcus Ware played in Dallas, can have the kind of impact Ware had.

Time will tell if he's right, because Ware's a 250-pound edge-rusher, and Williams, who weighs 282 right now and will try to slim down to 265-ish for his new role, hasn't played with his hand off the ground much in the NFL. But to think this is a revolutionary move ... as Jimmy Johnson would say, puh-leeze. And Williams wasn't exactly Bruce Smith as a defensive end.

Mario Williams wasn't exactly Bruce Smith at defensive end. Bruce Smith is a Hall of Fame player who averaged 11.5 sacks over his first 5 seasons. Mario Williams averaged 9.6 sacks over his first 5 seasons. So it isn't like Williams was that far below what Smith did early in his career. I'm not saying it is a stupid move to put Williams at linebacker, but the Texans are still taking one of the best defensive ends in the NFL and moving his position.

Sacks in the past five years, by the way: Ware 72, Williams 48.

This is just lazy on Peter's part. What does this even mean? I don't get how Williams and Ware are comparable, other than the fact Peter and Wade Phillips are seemingly comparing the two players. Ware is better at sacking the quarterback than Mario Williams. It doesn't mean when Williams moves to linebacker he will be able to excel at the same level DeMarcus Ware has. I know what Peter wants to mean, that it is possible for a defensive end to play linebacker in a 3-4, but these two are only comparable in that they were both defensive ends in college.

8. I think Rex Grossman will take the first snap of the 2011 season for the Redskins.

Bears fans are praying for you Redskins fans.

d. A Red Sox follower who would rather fold laundry for six hours than watch Matsuzaka pitch for three.

I would think Peter King would love to watch Daisuke Matsuzaka pitch for three hours. That most likely means he is pitching a great game or at least a complete game.

g. On one thing, though, I agree with Rashard Mendenhall: I am not taking to the streets to celebrate anyone's death. I support it, but I'm not hootin' and hollerin' over it.

What if the death was Daisuke Matsuzaka? He was never a true Red Sox anyway!

You're free to note the death however you wish; it's your personal choice, which I support.

Thanks Peter. Thanks for giving everyone permission to note the death of Osama bin Laden however they should choose to. I feel like a great weight has been lifted off of me now that the great Peter King has given us all permission to celebrate how we see fit.

j. Ten years ago we never heard of oblique injuries. Now there must be 20 baseball players on the DL with them.

Tom Powers would say this is just the players being super-pussies and not wanting to get out on the field and play with injuries like real men do. Unless that real man is really injured, in which case he should probably not even try to play. Unless he isn't really injured, as judged by Tom Powers, in which case he is a super-pussy and shouldn't play.

k. Will Ferrell's great. No matter what happens on The Office, I'll think he's great. But he's a bad fit on the show. His character is forced and unfunny.

l. Someone had to say it.

How noble and brave of someone to say it. Peter King: He is the Speaker of Truths only those who have watched and review the show will dare to say.

o. It's wedding week for publicist extraordinaire Karen Dmochowsky and SI's Gene Menez. Good luck to two people who deserve the best.

They are two people who probably deserve more than a congratulations in a public fashion where everyone can read. Congratulations Karen and Gene, you don't get a wedding present because as your present you got the honorable Peter King to write your name in his weekly MMQB! It's 100 times better than the discount blender he was going to purchase you!