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

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

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

IT'S BEEN 17 YEARS!

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

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

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

Not so fast, David Steele.

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

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

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

And then this:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3 comments Ten Things I Think I Think Peter King Has Not Thought Of: The Un-American Edition

It's time to dust off the links to articles that may not merit a full post, but definitely merit being discussed in this space. There is some Bleacher Report fun, one of the worst instances of PED speculation I have ever read, Manny Ramirez being an embarrassment, and Jay Mariotti calling Jurgen Klinsmann "Un-American." Jay the Patriot. Bob Nightengale even pulls a "Murray Chass" and says, "Hey, I just noticed these minor league players don't get called up until after they wouldn't qualify as a Super-2." As any good complaint about bad sportswriting should do, let's start off with Jay Mariotti.

1. Jay thinks that Jurgen Klinsmann's defeatest attitude (otherwise known as playing "mind games with the media in public while giving his team confidence in private") is very un-American. We all know Jay Mariotti should be the judge of what is and is not American. Jay had an issue with Klinsmann stating the American team couldn't win the World Cup, which I thought was simply him lowering expectations publicly for the U.S. Men's Soccer Team, but what do I know?

He doesn’t think the U.S. squad, the team he coaches, can win the golden trophy this year. I don’t believe the Americans will do much in Brazil, nor do you, nor does anyone else with even a modicum of soccer knowledge — but when the national coach blurts it out twice, before the first ball is kicked, I have to wonder why I should bother watching.

But if you don't think the Americans would win much in Brazil then why would you watch anyway? The assumption is Jay is watching the soccer game to see if the Americans can win and he wouldn't watch if he didn't think they could win. So if Jay doesn't think the Americans could win and he won't watch if they can't win, then why does he need confirmation from Klinsmann the U.S. squad could win the World Cup? Does Jay believe his opinion is wrong? If so, why does he hold an opinion he believes is incorrect?

“I think for us now, talking about winning a World Cup is just not realistic,” he said in Sao Paulo, mere days before the Americans take on their recent nemesis, Ghana, in first-round group play. “First we’ve got to make it through the group. So let’s stay with our feet on the ground and say let’s get that group first done, and then the sky is the limit. But a half a year before and even today before the World Cup starts — to say that we should win the World Cup is just not realistic.

The message was, "Let's not get ahead of ourselves and worry about winning the World Cup. Let's get out of group first." Seems like a reasonable message to me. It manages expectations and keeps the team focused on the current task at hand. Of course, focusing on the task at hand and not speculating about future victories is totally un-American.

The approach is embarrassingly un-American, if that’s what he’s getting at. Hired three years ago to fix a wayward U.S. program, the German national hero is speaking the truth about our ho-hum soccer condition at absolutely the wrong time, as if to take pressure off himself. This is a country that believes in sports miracles, none bigger than a 1980 Olympic hockey team with which he might want to familiarize himself.

It's un-American for Klinsmann to not unrealistically believe in miracles and give the nation false hope for the World Cup. How dare the U.S. coach not realistically manage expectations and choose instead to elevate expectations to where anything less than a miracle is considered a disappointment.

It’s hard to sell the sport to the American masses, as ESPN and Fox and NBC continue to do with great vigor, when our World Cup team keeps losing to Ghana. The least Klinsmann can do is let U.S. fans embrace their hopes and dreams, hollow as they are, before they’re officially punctured starting Monday in Natal.

This argument is absolutely ridiculous. Jay is essentially arguing Klinsmann should give the United States false hope about the team's talent in order to eventually be disappointed when the hope is shattered. Guess what else would happen? All of the talking heads would say, "Klinsmann promised a World Cup victory and he couldn't even get the team out of the group stage. Maybe he should be fired."

The idea a coach should give fans false hope intentionally is such a Jay Mariotti point of view. 

Foolishly left off the 23-man U.S. roster by Klinsmann, Donovan — merely the most recognizable and accomplished of American soccer players — thinks Klinsmann’s stance is all wrong. Not that Donovan is right in predicting the Americans will win the World Cup — he said so at a rally for the American Outlaws fan group — but it sure beats the Klinsmann blues.

Yeah, but Donovan is helping fans embrace hopes and dreams! That's all that matters in World Cup fantasy land isn't it?

“This will come as a surprise to nobody, but I disagree with Jurgen,” said Donovan, who likely will criticize Klinsmann early and often as an ESPN analyst if the U.S. doesn’t fare well. “I believe it and I think all of America believes we can do it. I agree with the American Outlaws — `We believe that we will win.’
 
“In my opinion, Germany’s one of the best teams in the world, and if we can beat Germany, why can’t we (advance from the group)?”

There is no "we" Landon, you aren't on the team. Also, it's a lot easier to talk shit about how the team can win the World Cup when you aren't an active member of the team. Donovan doesn't have to back up his words with actions. He can just sit and be a talking head while pointing out what the U.S. team SHOULD have done.

Oddly, Klinsmann named five German-American players to the team, all raised in Germany as the sons of U.S. servicemen. “Every year we are getting stronger,” he said.

And now Klinsmann is recruiting a bunch of foreigners to come in and play for the U.S. team. This ain't Germany, it's America! Go home and play with your Nazi propaganda you bunch of un-American American citizens!

“We are going to take the game to Ghana and they will take it to us and it will be an exciting game and then we go from there.’’

Can’t wait, coach.

Klinsmann should just be sure to give everyone in the United States false hope so Jay Mariotti can write a column describing how Klinsmann is a piece of shit coach because he promised something he couldn't deliver. See, Jay only wants to write a column ripping Klinsmann to shreds when he fails. It's no fun for Jay to see a coach like Klinsmann lower expectations to a reasonable level and not allow Jay the chance to rip him behind the safety of his computer.

2. I know you wanted to know who the most underrated player on each MLB team is. Don't worry, Bleacher Report has the list for you. It won't surprise you to know there are some interesting players on the list. And of course EVERY MLB team HAS to have an underrated player for the sake of pageviews.

Let's start the slideshow!

What follows is a rundown of the most underrated player on every MLB team. As you'll notice, there are a ton of relievers on the list whose contributions are often overlooked. However, there are also aces who are overshadowed by more prominent teammates.

Baltimore Orioles
  
Most Underrated Player: Nelson Cruz, DH/OF

You mean the 2-time All-Star and 2011 ALCS MVP? That Nelson Cruz?

It's truly remarkable that the Baltimore Orioles were able to sign Nelson Cruz to just a one-year, $8 million deal.

The Orioles were able to sign Cruz to this deal because he was suspended last year for PED use and no MLB team wanted to meet the 4 year $75 million request that Cruz had for his next contract. He had already turned down a 4 year $56 million deal with the Rangers. So he's not underrated because he's underpaid. There's a reason he is underpaid. He asked for too much money coming off a PED suspension.

Cincinnati Reds

Most Underrated Player: Brayan Pena, C

The 32 year old catcher who has a lifetime line of .258/.291/.361 and has never had an OPS+ over 100 is underrated? That's interesting.

Backup catchers generally don't get much attention. That's certainly true of Brayan Pena of the Cincinnati Reds. However, with starter Devin Mesoraco sidelined with a hamstring injury, Pena has been a key contributor for the Reds. 
 
In 20 games, the switch-hitter is batting .328 with a .923 OPS. The 32-year-old's strong start at the plate is not a complete shock considering that he hit .297 for the Detroit Tigers in 71 games a season ago.

As I write this, Pena has a .255 batting average with a .656 OPS. It sounds like the author is stating Pena is underrated based on a small sample size for 2014. He's a good backup catcher. That doesn't make him underrated.

Detroit Tigers

Most Underrated Player: Anibal Sanchez, SP

Oh, so the guy who signed a 5 year $88 million contract is underrated? It seems like given that contract amount the Tigers seem to think he's pretty good.

On just about any other team in baseball, Anibal Sanchez would the undisputed staff ace. On the Detroit Tigers, though, the right-hander is just the No. 3 starter.

The fact there are more traditionally more talented pitchers in front of Sanchez doesn't mean he is underrated.

Houston Astros

Most Underrated Player: Chris Carter, 1B/DH

In 2013, Carter swatted 29 home runs, which tied for No. 11 in the AL. This year, Carter has gone yard four times and also added seven doubles. Of course, he's also struck out 40 times.

Derr, he hits a lot of home runs so he must be underrated. Derr. Home runs are pretty. Carter is hitting .191/.280/.440 on the season. He has hit 13 home runs though, so that's super-impressive and makes him underrated.

Milwaukee Brewers

Most Underrated Player: Carlos Gomez, CF

The guy who was an All-Star last year, came in 9th in the MVP race and won a Gold Glove...that guy is underrated?

The center fielder was tied for the highest WAR (8.9) in MLB a season ago, per Baseball-Reference.com. In 2013, the right-handed hitter collected 24 home runs and also stole 40 bases. This year, Gomez is once again off to a fast start. The 28-year-old has nine doubles, eight home runs and is 4-for-5 on stolen-base attempts.

He's a great baseball player who was recognized in three ways last year as a great baseball player even though he plays in a smaller market. Sounds like he is properly rated.

Minnesota Twins

Most Underrated Player: Chris Colabello, 1B

Chris Colabello isn't just underrated. For years, the right-handed hitter was outright ignored.

Because he's not very good. He's hitting .232/.280/.377 on the season. It seems the author chose any player who got off to a hot start in 2014 as "underrated." Perhaps the slideshow should be called, "A list of players who got off to a hot start and I will call them underrated but don't pay attention to this slideshow in a month."

This year, the 30-year-old has totaled 10 doubles and four home runs. He's also collected 28 RBI, which ranks No. 5 in baseball.

He was sent down to the minors in late May. I'm sure he's a really, really underrated minor league player though.

New York Yankees

Most Underrated Player: Alfonso Soriano, DH

I don't need to explain this one. He's made $158 million in his career.

The 38-year-old doesn't hit for high average, but he provides a constant source of power. In 2014, the designated hitter has already connected on seven doubles and five home runs. His home run total is tied for second on the club.

He hits home runs and home runs are pretty.

Pittsburgh Pirates

Most Underrated Player: Neil Walker, 2B

Neil Walker provides a lot of pop for a second baseman. 
In 2012 and 2013, the switch-hitter connected on 14 and 16 home runs respectively. This year, the 28-year-old is on pace for his best output yet. Walker has already gone yard six times, which ranks second on the team.

Hit home runs? If so, the author will consider you underrated.

San Francisco Giants

Most Underrated Player: Brandon Hicks, 2B

A career .160/.263/.323 hitter is underrated? But why?

The right-handed batter is only hitting .208, but he owns a .330 OBP and has contributed five home runs including a walk-off.

He's not hitting .172 but he has hit 8 home runs, dammit! That's underrated!

Seattle Mariners

Most Underrated Player: Felix Hernandez, SP

Not at all, friend. Not at all. He plays on the West Coast for a team that isn't very good. He's not underrated because of this though. He has a Cy Young award as well.

Texas Rangers

Most Underrated Player: Martin Perez, SP

In 2014, Perez has already recorded two shutouts and reeled off a 26-inning scoreless stretch. However, the left-hander has now been tagged in back-to-back outings. His most recent poor performance came on May 5 when he served up five runs in five innings while pitching against the Colorado Rockies at Coors Field.

He's underrated because one time he pitched 26 straight scoreless innings. This makes him underrated apparently. Not every team has to have an underrated player, but that's just how Bleacher Report works sometimes.

3. Christine Brennan thinks that Florida State is coddling Jameison Winston, an amateur athlete by the way, a little bit too much. They need to be tougher on him. He doesn't get paid to get in trouble with the law, he gets paid to win football games.

Were Jameis Winston a fourth-string punter rather than a first-string quarterback, he almost certainly would have long since been kicked off the Florida State football team, probably for good.

Boy, she is astute. It's almost like college athletes are held to a different standard from other college students. That couldn't be true though, could it?

If we've learned anything over the past six months in the ugly Winston saga in Tallahassee, it's that nothing — not an allegation of sexual assault, not failing to appear when you're expected to testify, not stealing crab legs from the local Publix — will stand between the so-called leaders of Florida State and their unending love of their winning football program.

I think this lesson was learned in regard to Florida State quite a few years ago. This isn't a recent lesson to be learned about the school's love for their winning football program.

And that goes for you too, Tallahassee police department, letting a sexual assault case sit dormant for nine months, just long enough for Winston to be well on his way to completing that magical Seminole football season.

They should remove him from both the football and baseball teams at least until he answers questions about what happened the night of the alleged sexual assault, as two of his football teammates did at a code of conduct hearing on Tuesday. They should tell him he needs to take time away from both sports to begin to deal with his mushrooming off-the-field problems.

I mean, stealing crab legs is stealing crab legs. It's pretty clear that the Publix allowed Florida State players some sort of free rein to do this sort of thing in the past. Winston wasn't exactly running out the door on the video showing him stealing the crab legs.

And there is the potential of civil action against him and FSU. The kid has barely left his teenage years and already has not one but two attorneys. I don't care how many awards he has won. This is not the way you want to start out life as an adult.

I like the idea that the school should teach Jameis Winston a lesson about how to start life out as an adult when Christine Brennan thinks the school itself is corrupt and covering up for Winston. It would be the corrupt teaching the corruptible.

It's well past time for FSU's leaders to provide an example for Winston by actually playing the role they are supposed to play — that of adults supervising young people — and showing him he is worth more to FSU as a person than just as an athlete. They should stop letting him slide. They should tell him the only course of action is to show up and tell the truth, come what may.

The assumption here is that Winston had not told the truth and was previously lying. Christine Brennan doesn't provide any evidence this assumption is true.

But now he's all lawyered up, so that's not going to happen. He's all but untouchable now.

Fucking lawyers always looking out for their clients using due process and the American judicial system to their client's favor. What a bunch of sharks. 

When Winston stole the crab legs, FSU did the right thing, at least for a little while. He was suspended from the baseball team, where he is a relief pitcher — for all of four days. He was back in plenty of time to finish up the regular season and play in this week's Atlantic Coast Conference tournament. I'm sure that comes as a shock to absolutely no one. It's the FSU way.

I mean, they were crab legs. It's not like he is stealing televisions or committing a large scale crime which would require jail time. Stealing anything isn't right, but they are crab legs. In terms of committing a crime, this is pretty low on the totem pole.

Yes, Florida State needs to be harsher, but if Christine Brennan is in anyway surprised that star football players get different rules to play by then she hasn't paid attention for the last 30 years.

4. Phil Mushnick is tired of the nonsense on baseball broadcasts and is also pissed off that the grocery store moved the wine aisle all the way across the store so he has to walk further to pick up his favorite Chardonnay. Mushnick is tired of baseball players not running when they need to be running. In fact, he's just tired and angry about everything.

It went unmentioned — and likely unknown by Kay, at the time — Arenado wouldn’t have had to slide had he run the entire way on a shot off the wall in left.

In town with the Dodgers last week was Matt Kemp, 2011 MVP runner-up who missed 89 games last season with ankle surgery. While that’s regularly noted by local media, its particulars are never addressed:

Here is Mushnick talking yet again about how Matt Kemp should have been running on this play. It's not enough to mention it in his column, but he thinks announcers should talk about how lazy Matt Kemp is every single time his ankle surgery is mentioned.

On a chopper between first and second, Kemp, on third, jogged toward the plate, presuming there would be no play on him. When the throw was made to the plate, Kemp, who should have easily scored, standing, turned it on too late. His awkward slide wrecked his ankle.

Got that? A star missed 89 games because he didn’t bother to run to the next base! Crazy, but that’s now standard MLB play.

Yes, this is now a "standard" MLB play. Everywhere you look there are stars not running to the next base. In fact, some baseball players like Yasiel Puig are crawling to the next base or not even attempting to run the bases if he doesn't hit a home run. Puig actually heads to the dugout after a single because he wanted a home run and isn't going to waste his time hustling if he can't hit a home run and trot around the bases.

Over the weekend, the Cubs named Manny Ramirez a Triple-A player/coach. Hmm, now what advice could he provide aspiring big leaguers?

Gosh, I don't know. What advice could an absolutely fantastic hitter impart to aspiring big leaguers? I can't think of anything other than to share the knowledge that helped Ramirez become one of the best hitters in baseball history.

How to pose at home plate? How to turn doubles into singles, in playoff games, too? How to assault a 65-year-old traveling secretary for being unable to meet a late request to leave 16 tickets for buddies? Tips on how to be consistently, conspicuously, unconditionally selfish?

Exactly. I'm sure Ramirez is providing tips on all of these things. It must be nice to be as perfect as Phil Mushnick is and be able to spend the majority of your time pointing out everything that others have done wrong and then holding it over that person's head for their entire lifetime. Perfection is such a burden.

Wednesday during Dodgers-Mets, an SNY graphic on L.A. starter Zach Greinke: “No more than two runs allowed in any of last 21 starts, longest streak in MLB history.” Wow!

Fuck your snark, that is impressive.

Know how many complete games Greinke has pitched in the last four seasons? One. He’s a six-to-seven-innings starter. Yet, he has surpassed the greatest of greats, including those who regularly pitched nine innings and occasionally allowed three runs. Bob Gibson threw 28 complete games in 1968 — and again in ’69!

Don't worry, this is still an impressive record. Your impression of history isn't going to be threatened. Clearly, a caveat stating Greinke only pitches six or seven innings should have been included. We can't have anyone thinking today's pitchers are as great as pitchers were in Phil Mushnick's time.

Sense? Tuesday night, with the Dodgers in town, TV couldn’t help but show the first six rows behind the plate — best seats in the Mets’ house — went empty. The Mets and Yankees have that in common. At the same time, the Yankees were playing the last-place Cubs at Wrigley. Not an empty seat in sight.

I'm sure there is no price differential in seats in the first six rows at Yankee Stadium, Citi Field and Wrigley Field. That probably wouldn't explain why the seats were empty. I'm not entirely sure why this makes Phil Mushnick so angry.

Headfirst slides? Why not? Knock yourselves out.

Why are you so angry? Why do you pick out the most inane things and then complain about them in your column? It's like hearing a senile, homeless man rant on the corner about how the trees are looking at him funny.

5. Speaking of Manny Ramirez, Dan Shaughnessy was embarrassed by the Red Sox tribute to him. "It's a farce!," says Shaughnessy.

Let me see if I have this straight: Manny Ramirez hit like Jimmie Foxx for 7½ seasons in Boston, but it turned out he was cheating with PEDs the whole time.

I'm not sure it's known whether he was cheating with PED's (it sounds like Manny was cheating with PED's in a biblical way, luring PED's into bed...I can picture him smoking a cigarette beside the cream and clear) the entire time he was with the Red Sox. Jimmie Foxx had an extra "x" in his name, so that has to count for some sort of cheating, right? It made him seem extra badass.

Ramirez also regularly ignored the kids from the Jimmy Fund

What about the kids? Doesn't Manny care about the kids?

After quitting on the Sox, he went to Los Angeles and hit .396 with 17 homers and 53 RBIs in the final 53 games of the season. Without Ramirez, the Sox went on to lose the seventh game of the 2008 AL Championship Series to the Tampa Bay Rays.

Ramirez was also instrumental in the Red Sox winning two World Series, which is the reason he was honored...so there's that too.

On the night the Sox chose to honor the most important team in their 114-year history, they made Manny the featured character. After legitimate Sox gods Pedro Martinez, David Ortiz, and Curt Schilling were asked to step aside — Bloody Sock Schill was making his first public appearance while in the throes of a serious battle with cancer — Manny came out from the Green Monster and had the honor of throwing the ceremonial first pitch.

Manny doesn't care about the kids AND he took the ceremonial first pitch from a person stricken with cancer. I'm surprised he didn't punch a baby in the face on his way out from the Green Monster. I also like how Manny isn't a "legitimate" Sox god. He certainly seemed legitimate when he helped lead the Red Sox to two World Series victories. It's funny how time has scraped Ramirez's legitimacy away.

Manny received the loudest ovation. 

Another example of the fans being assholes. They cheer for a granny-assaulting, PED-using, kid-snubbing, cancer survivor-snubbing, illegitimate Sox god. These people have no morals, but should feel free to continue to read Dan's columns and buy his books in order to make him more money.

Wow. Forgiveness is a wonderful thing. We wish Manny the best as he goes forward in his new life.

No, you don't. No one likes a liar. Well, no one likes a liar who can't play sports well and Dan Shaughnessy doesn't seem like he can play sports well.

But management knows better. Must the Sox brass always appeal to the lowest common denominator? (Seen NESN lately?)

Read Dan Shaughnessy's column lately? I should go easy on Dan, he hasn't been able to manufacture a fake curse in order to sell books in over a decade. Times are tough for him.

Appearing on WEEI’s “Dennis & Callahan” Thursday morning, Sox CEO Larry Lucchino said,...“But the simple fact is that we were honoring the World Series championship of 2004 and the MVP in the World Series was Manny Ramirez . . . A choice had to be made among several candidates that were fitting and appropriate and I believe the decision turned on the World Series MVP. 

It's a logical way to determine who should throw out the first pitch. I know Dan Shaughnessy doesn't like the decision, but choosing between the other Sox players was difficult so the World Series MVP (the non-legitimate Sox god) threw out the first pitch.

“That seemed to be a rational decision. We would never please everyone.’’

Especially those people like Dan Shaughnessy who could never be pleased.

6. Now comes an absolutely terrible slideshow (not done by Bleacher Report) called "10 Most Likely Baseball Steroid Users Never Caught." Yeah, wow. This is the type of stuff that lawsuits are made of.

Albert Pujols: 

Let's be honest here. The odds of Albert Pujols being clean are slim. He's never been caught or linked to PED's, but something just doesn't add up.

Yes, let's be honest. Let's accuse Pujols of using PED's because that's the most honest thing that could be done in this situation. 

Nolan Ryan: 

Ryan retired in 1993 with the Texas Rangers. He played with Jose Canseco in his later years, which makes him even more suspicious.

He played on the same team as Jose Canseco. So did hundreds of other baseball players, so every single one of them has to be under suspicion, right? As I've detailed many times, if this shitty reasoning is used then what does it say about Derek Jeter? 

Mike Sweeney:  

Mike Sweeney had back problems through much of his career, but he was a big-time offensive weapon for Kansas City from 1999-2003.

Sweeney wasn't much of an offensive weapon prior to those seasons. In fact, it came as a big surprise to Royals fans when he became the hitter that led him to 5 All-Star appearances.

Sweeney wasn't much of an offensive weapon prior to those seasons because he was 24 years old and had never gotten more than 300 at-bats in a season, but don't let facts get in the way of creating lies about Mike Sweeney. 

Rickey Henderson: 

Maybe Rickey really was a freak of an athlete. Or maybe he was on steroids. We'll probably never know.

Maybe Napoleon Bonaparte was Emperor of the French. Or maybe he was a Tyrannosaurus Rex pretending to be a human. We'll probably never know. 

Adrian Beltre: 

This is a tough one because Adrian Beltre only has one monster season. But he's been so up-and-down that his career doesn't make much sense.

He's only had one monster season as long as you don't count his production from 2010-2013. I'm looking for the up and down part of his career. He's seemed pretty consistent to me. 

Cliff Lee: 

Cliff Lee was a mediocre pitcher from 2003-2007. In 2008, he won the Cy Young and has been great ever since. It is a bit odd that Lee couldn't figure things out until age 29, especially after pitching so many innings prior to that season.

Sandy Koufax didn't become a Hall of Fame pitcher until he turned 26 years old despite pitching almost 955 innings prior to that. Maybe he was on steroids too!

The author of this is an absolute moron. Like he didn't even do one bit of research and just sort of took a big shit all over his keyboard and this group of sentences is the result. Cliff Lee went 18-5 with a 3.79 ERA and 1.218 WHIP in 2005. He came in 4th in the Cy Young voting. He struggled in 2006 and was injured most of 2007. But no really, I'm sure he used steroids beginning in 2008.

Jacoby Ellsbury: 

Jacoby Ellsbury has much in common with Brady Anderson. They even play the same position.

Oh, well say no more. Obviously Jacoby Ellsbury used steroids because Brady Anderson was a proven steroid us---wait, no he wasn't. He never failed a test for steroids that didn't exist when Brady Anderson played in the majors. But they both played centerfield at one point during their career, so that's some hard-and-fast evidence right there. 

Maybe it was a fluke. Or maybe he cheated like Brady Anderson did when he hit 50 homers in 1996.

I wish you would get sued. 

7. Vernon Davis explains why he is holding out. In a shocking twist of events, it's not about him and his need for more money, but is totally about getting what he deserves. 

In 2010 I signed a five-year, $37 million contract extension with $23 million guaranteed. It was the biggest contract for a tight end in league history.

But Vernon Davis deserved the biggest contract for any football player in league history. He's holding out to right this wrong.

Four years later, and I’m playing at a higher level than I was then, which brings me to why I’m holding out.

Because you signed a contract for you to be compensated for your performance over a five year period and the fact you could improve your performance over this time period is the risk you took when signing the contract? Would Davis have given the money back if you didn't play at a higher level? I doubt it. I hate to bring this up, but Davis hasn't matched his production since signing that contract in terms of receptions and yards. He did have 13 touchdowns this past season, but I would argue he is earning his contract and hasn't exceeded what the 49ers paying for by giving him a $37 million contract extension. At his best, I would say Davis' level of play hasn't declined and has stayed consistent, but I'm not sure that's enough for a contract extension.

It’s all about getting paid what you deserve.

And you are getting paid what you deserve. You are getting paid like one of the top tight ends in the NFL. Congrats!

I want the 49ers to win the Super Bowl, and I want to be on the field this summer working toward that goal, but I have to worry about my future first.

Hey, I understand. I really do. It's just I wouldn't say you are playing at a higher level now than you were when you signed the contract extension.

Most of my teammates and many players in the NFL understand that. A few don’t. Behind closed doors, they’ll say they’re all about the team and would run through a brick wall for the organization. But when you look closer, they’re doing things to contradict themselves.

At least Davis is being honest that it isn't all about the team to him. Personally if I'm the 49ers, even if this is the truth, it makes me nervous to hand out to Davis another contract extension since he's on the wrong side of 30 and is admitting he worries about the team after himself. The truth is great, but it also sucks.

I can’t listen to anyone but my family and my advisors, because those are the people who are going to be there when football inevitably dumps me.

And really, who could live on $37 million? I wish Davis the best of luck in his attempt to get more money, but I think he's getting paid what he deserves right now.

8. Howard Bryant thinks Kevin Durant needs to drive to the basket more. While one can see his point, Durant's competitive advantage is that he is really tall and it's hard to block his shot when he shoots jump shots. He is a skinny guy, so driving to the basket would also cause wear and tear on his body that he could have difficulty withstanding. Also, Durant's inability to drive to the basket isn't why the Thunder didn't win the NBA title this year. I think that's important to know.

Offense was built from the inside, which opened up the outside shot, not the other way around. That was especially true in the playoffs, when referees rewarded an attacking offense with free throws and let aggressive defenses dictate:

The analytics say those days are dead. They say the 3 is the key. On a team with Larry Bird and Danny Ainge, the champion 1983-84 Celtics attempted 229 3-pointers. This season Kevin Durant attempted 491 3s by himself. The game resembles a long-distance shooting contest. Yet when the trophies are raised, the winning formula is older than a pair of classic Chuck Taylors. That is why the lasting image of Durant was of him walking off the court after losing to the Spurs in the Western Conference finals, no closer to a title now than when he entered the NBA seven years ago.

Could it be because the Thunder team is built around Ibaka (who was injured in the playoffs this year), Westbrook (who was injured in the playoffs last year), Durant and a bunch of role players that really aren't that great and can't be counted on to score? Nah, it's because Kevin Durant won't drive to the basket.

The biggest questions, however, surround Durant himself.

The numbers say he isn't the problem. The numbers say he is efficient. The numbers say he isn't just a behind-the-arc gunner: No one shot more free throws than the 805 he attempted this season.

Howard Bryant's theory is Durant needs to go to the basket more often to get fouled, yet Durant shot more foul shots than any other NBA player. So it seems like he's doing a good job of getting to the foul line by being a gunner and he is preventing his relatively skinny body from taking a beating. Durant isn't built like Jordan, he definitely isn't built like LeBron.

But history says it is impossible for a superstar to win 25 feet from the basket; Durant's game runs counter to what playoff basketball rewards. Yes, the Heat take plenty of 3s, but LeBron sharpens his game for the playoffs. He penetrates more, becoming tougher to defend and thus going to the line more.

But again, Durant's advantage is that his shot is almost impossible to block when he's taking a jump shot because he is so tall.

About 23 percent of James' shots were taken from behind the arc in the regular season and in the playoffs leading up to the Finals, but his foul shot attempts increased from 7.6 to 8.7 per game.

During this year's playoffs, 29.6 percent of his shots were from 3, and he went to the line 8.6 times a game.

So the problem is Durant doesn't get to the line as much as LeBron in the playoffs, though those pesky statistics say that Durant went to the free throw line almost exactly as much as LeBron. So Durant needs to be more like LeBron and get to the free throw line even though he's already getting to the free throw line in the playoffs as much as LeBron does.

If he wants to join the ranks of James, Jordan and Bryant, he must attack as they did. When it was go time, they went -- to the basket.

Again, Durant isn't build like these guys were built. Not that he can't go to the basket, and it's never a bad idea to drive to the basket, but I'm not sure this is the big need for the Thunder to take the next step and win an NBA title.

Whatever the solution, the current plan isn't working. Durant might be the MVP, but when it comes to championship basketball, the wheel cannot be reinvented. Many have tried. All have failed.

The current plan isn't working because the Thunder don't have very good role players. Outside of Reggie Jackson they have no one who can score and Steven Adams had to play big minutes in the playoffs once Ibaka went down. The wheel can not be reinvented, which is why part of the solution for the Thunder to play championship basketball is to improve the players around Kevin Durant, Ibaka and Westbrook.

9. Bob Nightengale wonders if there is a conspiracy to keep minor league players in the minors until they don't qualify for Super-2 status. Yes, there is. It's pretty much a no-lose proposition. It's not against the CBA, it saves the team money in the long-term and ensures a prospect plays as much minor league baseball until he is ready to play in the majors. At least Nightengale stops short of accusing these teams of lacking integrity.

Pittsburgh Pirates outfielder Gregory Polanco, who debuted just a week ago, is already impacting the National League, getting a hit in every one of his seven games.

In a cruel paradox, the better Polanco performs, the more scrutiny the Pirates may face.

If the Pirates don't return to the postseason this year, particularly if they miss out by only a game or two, the scorn will come in waves.

It's not a cruel paradox. It's a strategic decision the Pirates organization has made in which they are choosing to forgo immediate success for two months in favor of having an additional year of Gregory Polanco. And as I always say, if Polanco ends up being a great player then none of this Super-2 or not crap will matter. He will be signed to a contract extension by the Pirates which buys out his arbitration years.

So naturally, folks want to know, why wasn't he called up sooner? Was his debut intentionally delayed to avoid paying an extra year of arbitration? Was he penalized for not agreeing to the seven-year, $25 million contract offer earlier this year? Did the Pirates risk a potential playoff berth to save millions?

I have defended teams keeping players in the minors until after they can't qualify as Super-2's before. I will continue to do so until it is against the CBA that is negotiated. It's a long-term strategy. I can't get behind keeping a player in the minors because he won't sign a long-term deal prior to being called up. That's shady and is some bullshit.

Players with two years of service time and rank among the top 22% of their class are eligible for four years of salary arbitration, and not three years, which can be worth millions. If the arbitration rights simply began at a full three years (which the owners would love) or two years (which the players would love), it would avoid the appearance of any deceit.

"I thought it was a grave mistake when we went to the Super-2 [in 1990],'' Coonelly said, "and I continue to believe it's a grave mistake, especially in a market like Pittsburgh. I would really be in favor to going back to three years. Or even two years. Or even getting rid of salary arbitration entirely.

The arbitration system can be stupid at times, but I'm not sure about getting rid of it entirely. But see, this is the part Murray Chass leaves out when he rails against teams keeping players in the minors too long. He forgets the part where the players negotiated the current Super-2 rule and not all owners like the rule. Obviously the owners want a bargain that is more advantageous to them, but this Super-2 rule was negotiated and agreed to by the player's union.

If a player is really ready, no matter the financial implications, you want to believe the team will bring him up. If not, you really hope it's for the player's development, and not for the good of the club's bank account.

Here's the problem...when is a player "ready"? A player could tear up the minor leagues and come up to the majors and struggle, then get sent back down for more minor league seasoning. It happens.

"You have to take it on the faith that the clubs are doing the right thing for their team and their organization,'' Chicago Cubs ace Jeff Samardzija says. "You hope that they are truly keeping guys down because they need more time in the minor leagues.

"If they don't, it's just absurd. Why wouldn't you try to put your best team on the field?''

Teams have budgets to manage. That's why they don't put their best team on the field. The arbitration system in baseball can be ridiculously stupid. Jeff Francoeur got paid $3.4 million in arbitration despite the fact he was coming off a season where he was one of the worst regular players in the majors and hit .239/.294/.359. Once that arbitration clock starts things can get silly for a team dealing with a budget.

The Pirates insist they're doing the right thing, and the timing for Polanco's call-up has everything to do with his development - with only 295 plate appearances above Class A before the year - and not money.

"Gregory Polanco, barring something completely unexpected,'' Huntington said, "was not going to make the team out of spring training.''

And that's the thing, a guy like Polanco has only had 295 plate appearances above Class A ball. Is it really such a smart thing to throw him on the major league roster because he tears up the minors for the month of April? Players go on tears and then the pitchers adjust to these players. It made sense to see Polanco adjust to the pitchers who were adjusting to him, then call him up once he proved he could make the necessary adjustments and was ready for the majors. And yes, the Pirates saved money as well. I'm sure the Pirates fans won't mind if it turns out Polanco doesn't sign a long-term deal buying out his arbitration years and the team gets an extra year of Polanco prior to arbitration.

10. Ross Tucker doesn't like to put stock in Johnny Manziel. It's because of all the usual reasons of course.

Tucker does the typical, "I have no problem with Example A or B of Manziel partying, but here is Example C that I have a problem with."

I didn't have any problem with the picture of him hanging with Rob Gronkowski and a bunch of ladies in Las Vegas over Memorial Day weekend. Good for him. 

The inflatable swan and a bottle of champagne thing probably didn't look great to some people, but I thought it was funny. 

His latest off field stunt, however, now has me legitimately concerned. 

Tucker is no longer amused or illegitimately concerned, he's now legitimately concerned. It's not because of Manziel's partying of course. His concern is about Manziel's partying.

There's a video making the rounds all over the Internet from a party for Manziel's friend Drake in Houston in which Manziel holds up a stack of cash to his ear like it is a phone and tells the camera he "can't hear you because there's too much money in my f------ hand!" 

Manziel's signature move is to rub his fingers together like he's got money in them. He's done this for a while now. Ross Tucker obviously would know this. So...why is this concerning then?

Even if you are a hardcore Manziel supporter, you have to admit it's a bad look for a guy that's supposed to be the new face of the franchise for the Browns. Stacks of cash? Dropping an f-bomb on a video? Eyes barely open, presumably because he's so inebriated? 

"All those other times Manziel has clearly been inebriated in public and has made reference to making money are no big deal. This instance disturbs me though...not that I'm looking for a reason to be disturbed by Manziel and want to make it seem like I'm not searching for a new reason to question Manziel's behavior, of course."

Manziel’s behavior is getting progressively worse and eroding the public confidence in both the player and organization. That's a problem. 

Training Camp hasn't even started yet. What confidence in Manziel did the public have previously? Did they watch college football over the past two seasons? I'm not saying I wouldn't be annoyed if I was a Browns fan, but this is what Manziel has done over the past two years. It's not new. Why the sudden, "Hold on a second, this infatuation with celebrity and money while showing confidence in himself is a red flag!"? This is the guy the Browns wanted and drafted. He hasn't changed.

He told everybody that would listen during the pre-draft process, that the "Johnny Football" persona and lifestyle was behind him. I guess not. It looks more and more like that was one heck of an Eddie Haskell routine that Manziel pulled off, possibly pulling the wool over the Browns' eyes. 

You mean Manziel was telling people what they wanted to hear during the pre-draft interview process like I said he was doing? No way. You mean Manziel didn't magically change and not really want to make stacks of money after he was drafted and actually started making stacks of money? If Ross Tucker was fooled by Manziel during the pre-draft interview process then it is only because he wanted to be fooled. Come on, he's still a kid and he's still an exciting quarterback prospect.

Current Lions backup quarterback Dan Orlovsky chimed in as well, asking someone to "Find me a QB with his off the field lifestyle that has had a lot of success." 

Joe Namath.

Also, Dan Orlovsky, at least Manziel knows where the hell the back of the end zone is and doesn't step out of it like an idiot. I mean, Dan Orlovsky is the go-to guy on how a quarterback can juggle his lifestyle and still have success? Does he know the dimensions of the end zone yet?

That's just it. You can't. Even if you say guys like Tom Brady, Peyton Manning and Drew Brees are bad examples because they are in their mid-to-late thirties, what about youngsters like Andrew Luck, Russell Wilson and Robert Griffin III? 

Manziel is not the first quarterback to ever have fun. Plenty of them have and still do. They are just smart and discreet about the way in which they go about it because they understand the public attention that goes along with their job. It comes with the territory and they accept that. 

Okay, now I'm confused. No quarterback has had the lifestyle Manziel leads off the field and had a lot of success, except Ross Tucker says plenty of quarterbacks have fun, but they are discreet about it. So the difference is that Manziel is dumb enough to have fun in front of a camera, but other NFL quarterbacks have had a fun lifestyle and had success as an NFL quarterback? Is that what I'm reading?

I remember calling the starting quarterback of the team I was on one time during my career on a Saturday in the offseason and he told me he was at Home Depot getting supplies to make a beer funnel. He liked to party. He just did it at private residences around people he could trust. If we went out, he never had more than two beers. He would've liked to have had more, but he knew he couldn't. He said the message boards and blogs would be all over him. 

So again, I'm not defending Manziel's actions, but the difference is he has fun in front of a camera and other quarterbacks party in private? Manziel definitely has a discretion problem, but the fact the public doesn't know about the off the field lifestyle of other quarterbacks doesn't mean other NFL quarterbacks haven't led a similar lifestyle to Manziel and still had success in the NFL. It sounds like Ross Tucker is backing this assertion up a little bit.

The truth is, I hope he does have success. I'm a radio talk-show host. That'd be great for me. Johnny's great for me. Plus, Browns fans are extremely loyal and passionate. They deserve a winner.

Too bad it's looking less and less like Manziel's going to be the guy to bring it to them. 

He's not thrown an NFL pass yet. Let's see how much partying he does once Training Camp starts and the time comes to actually be an NFL quarterback. Manziel hasn't changed, I'm not sure why there is an assumption he would. He's a guy who likes partying, money and being around celebrities. Ross Tucker really thought Manziel becoming a millionaire would curb the partying, love of money and being around celebrities? I don't understand how Tucker never had a problem with Manziel's partying until this newest instance of partying. 

0 comments Ross Tucker Says Alex Smith Deserves Tony Romo/Jay Cutler Money Because of Team Performance, But Not Because of Team Performance

I generally try my best to fair. I really do. Ross Tucker writes pretty well for an ex-athlete and generally does a good job making the point he wants to make. That's me being fair. He is also the guy who wrote a column stating the Lions should just not draft anyone, rather than draft Matthew Stafford and pay him what the going price for a quarterback drafted in #1 overall in 2009 was. So there's that. I mean, not drafting anyone at #1 overall was his solution. So he has a history of some lunacy. Now Ross Tucker has written an article saying Alex Smith "deserves" Tony Romo and Jay Cutler money, but not because of his team's performance, but mostly because of his team's performance.

I have a problem with the word "deserve" being used in sports. The Cavs supposedly didn't "deserve" the #1 overall pick in the 2014 NBA Draft because they have drafted #1 overall twice recently, a guy like Alex Smith who was overpaid for most his career "deserves" money like Romo and Cutler, and it goes on. I think in the realm of sports what a team/player "deserves" is over-used. It's all relative I guess, but does Alex Smith "deserve" a big contract or does the fact he didn't always live up to his previous 6 year $49.5 million contract mean he should be underpaid compared to other quarterbacks who are probably a little overpaid? What does "deserves" really mean anyway?

After all, is the fact Romo and Cutler got Romo and Cutler money a reflection on their ability or the fact the quarterback market usually errs on the side of overpaying for a quality quarterback? The NFL is a QB-driven league, so teams will overpay to keep a quality quarterback around. This leads to situations where quarterbacks like Alex Smith who is more middle-of-the-road wants money like quarterbacks who are a tier above him have received. So Ross Tucker doesn't ask if Cutler/Romo's contract is a reflection of the quarterback market more than it is a reflection of Alex Smith's talent compared to Romo and Cutler. So maybe Alex Smith doesn't deserve as much money as Cutler and Romo because they didn't deserve that amount of money originally. And yes, I realize the market sets what each player is worth, but Cutler nor Romo ever hit the market as a free agent. I'm rambling and hopefully you get my semi-coherent point.

Speaking of semi-coherent, let's read about Ross Tucker using team performance as his reason for why Alex Smith should get paid like Cutler and Romo, while saying he doesn't want to use team performance as to why Alex Smith should be paid like Cutler and Romo.

Jay Cutler, Tony Romo and Alex Smith.
Which name doesn't belong?

I don't know the category, so it's impossible to answer this question. If the category is "Quarterbacks who haven't won a Super Bowl" then they all belong. If the category is "quarterbacks who are first round picks" then Tony Romo doesn't belong.

My guess is that we are thinking of the same player, but I'm fairly confident that our reasoning is different.
Only one of those three NFL quarterbacks turned 30 years old this month. The other two are 31 and 34.

Only one of those quarterbacks hasn't thrown for 4000 yards in a season. Only one of these quarterbacks has thrown 20 touchdown passes in a season once. I can cherry-pick numbers too!

Only one has won 75 percent of their regular season starts over the last three years. The other two are not even close to winning at that high of a clip.
Only one has helped lead his team to the postseason each of the last three seasons. The other two have not gotten their team into the postseason even once over the same stretch.

Only one quarterback has taken his team to the NFC Championship Game once and then had his backup take that team to the Super Bowl and NFC Championship Game over the following two seasons. To say Alex Smith "led" his team to the postseason in 2012 is a bit misleading. He started the first nine games and then took one snap the rest of the season. Alex Smith's 6-2 record is impressive, but I think it's fair to say Colin Kaepernick is who led the 49ers to the postseason in 2012. Whatever though, I won't let facts get in the way of Ross Tucker's opinion.

Only one of these quarterbacks has had to quarterback two different teams during the previous three years.

Probably because the other two quarterbacks have only played for one team over the previous three years. It's kind of difficult to lead a team you don't quarterback to the playoffs isn't it?

I've heard a lot of criticism of Tony Romo, but the fact he hasn't led another team besides the Cowboys to the playoffs in the last three years is completely new criticism. It's clear at this point that Ross Tucker is cherry-picking his information and he's only cherry-picking team-related information at that.

It's a bit of an unfair comparison isn't it? Alex Smith is the only quarterback of these three who has played for two teams over the last three years. What did Ross Tucker expect?

Only one of them makes less than $10 million per year. The other two are in the $18M per season range.

I can't believe Alex Smith only gets paid $10 million per year! Actually, Tony Romo's cap hit for 2014 is $11.7 million, Alex Smith's cap hit is $8 million, and Cutler's is $18.5 million. The average for Romo and Cutler are $18 million, but I think Ross Tucker understands the cap hit is what really counts when comparing quarterbacks to each other in terms of money.

So what's my point? There are several reports out there that Smith wants to be paid like Romo and Cutler. Some people think that is crazy.

I don't think it's crazy to ask to get paid like Cutler or Romo. I think it would be crazy if the Chiefs paid Smith like Cutler or Romo. Not because Smith may not relatively deserve similar money if taken in terms of his team's performance, but because I believe Smith is more easily replaceable than both Cutler and Romo are. Smith seems to take care of the football and his teams win games, but this doesn't mean he should paid on-par with quarterbacks like Romo and Cutler. In terms of individual achievement, both Romo and Cutler have performed at a higher level individually.

I don't.

Clearly you don't. Of course Ross Tucker also doesn't seem to be able to acknowledge that the Cowboys seem to have some buyer's remorse at signing Romo to that contract, so this could be an indication Smith may deserve to be paid like Romo, but the Chiefs could be smart not to care what Smith deserves.

What would you be asking for at this point if you were Smith?

I would ask for as much money as I thought the Chiefs might give me. If I were an impartial football columnist then I would not look at it from Smith's point of view as to whether Smith deserves what he's asking for. Smith is entitled to ask for as much money as Cutler and Romo, but that really doesn't mean he should be paid that much.

I'm not one of those people who looks only at a quarterback's won/loss record,

Actually, yes you are the exact one of those people who looks only at a quarterback's won/loss record. From earlier in this column:

Only one has won 75 percent of their regular season starts over the last three years. The other two are not even close to winning at that high of a clip.Only one has helped lead his team to the postseason each of the last three seasons. The other two have not gotten their team into the postseason even once over the same stretch.

That same quarterback has not only helped get his team to the playoffs the last three years, but he's won a playoff game and played extremely well in two separate playoff games during that time.
Only one of these quarterbacks has had to quarterback two different teams during the previous three years.

And the conclusion Ross Tucker reached prior to saying he's "not one of those people who looks only at a quarterback's won/loss record:"

So what's my point? There are several reports out there that Smith wants to be paid like Romo and Cutler. Some people think that is crazy. 
I don't.

So whether he wants to be or not, he is one of those people.

because there are a lot of factors that go into that and it would be foolish to look only at that one thing. Still, it would be equally foolish to completely dismiss it.

But you...you...just made a case...the entire case you made...you only mentioned...the team performance thing is tied into the win/loss record...that's all you made mention of...the conclusion that Smith should get paid like Romo and Cutler...win/loss is all you looked at when making the case. You see, right?

In this column Ross Tucker will make zero mention of Alex Smith's individual performance and compare it to Romo or Cutler's individual performance. Nothing. Nada. Zilch. None. Zero. That's how many times Ross Tucker will compare the individual statistics of Jay Cutler and Tony Romo to Alex Smith. His entire case for why Alex Smith should get paid like Romo and Cutler is based on win/loss record of Smith's teams compared to Romo and Cutler's team. That's it. Then he tries to act like he's not someone who bases the entire conclusion on win/loss record.

Winning the game, after all, is the goal.  You know that, right?

I do know that. I also know that Colin Kaepernick took the 49ers to the Super Bowl and the NFC Championship Game over the last two seasons. This isn't a Brady/Cassel case where one quarterback played well, but didn't match the elite performance of his predecessor, Kaepernick has performed as well and better than Smith did in terms of team performance (since that seems to be what Tucker cares so much about).

Make the plays that help your team, or maybe more importantly, don't make the plays that prevent your team from winning.

Yes, this is what being a quarterback is all about. I won't state this as being untrue. Quarterbacks who don't make the plays that prevent their team from winning are seen as game managers and generally are also seen as more replaceable than quarterbacks like Cutler and Romo. Fair or not, NFL teams tend not to give $100 million to quarterbacks who just try to avoid making mistakes.

Plus, it's not like other statistics that people look at are only quarterback measurements. Touchdown to interception ratio, yards per attempt and completion percentage, for instance, can all be products, at least in part, of scheme, coaching philosophy, and talent surrounding the quarterback on both sides of the ball.

Fair point, but what is a more indicative product of a team's overall talent and coaching talent than that team's win-loss record? Quarterback measurements are somewhat a product of the talent around that quarterback, but the record of that quarterback's team is entirely indicative of the team's overall talent. Ross Tucker makes a valid point, but fails to understand this same point can be used to dismiss Alex Smith's claim to deserving as much money as Cutler and Romo. It's entirely possible Smith's appearances in the playoffs and decent performance at quarterback are the result of coaching philosophy and scheme, just like Cutler and Romo's lack of playoff appearances in the last three years are a result of these factors. It goes both ways.

Really, what's the best argument for why Smith is not worth Romo/Cutler money? That he's not as physically talented as those two?

The best argument for why Smith is worth Romo/Cutler money is based the assumption that Cutler and Romo are worth the money they are paid. But yes, the best argument for why Smith isn't worth Romo/Cutler money is because in terms of individual performance. Smith doesn't put up the numbers that Romo and Cutler put up. Quarterbacks are often paid on their individual performance and Smith's individual performance isn't on par with Romo and Cutler's individual performance.

Well, neither is Peyton Manning or Tom Brady, so where does that leave us? 

Ross Tucker can't really believe this. Tom Brady and Peyton Manning aren't physically talented, but between Brady and Manning they have had one season where they didn't throw for more yards than Smith's career high for passing yardage in a season. There have been two seasons where Manning/Brady didn't throw for more touchdowns in a season than Alex Smith's career high in a season at 23.

It's not about Brady or Manning not being physically talented, it is about the performance of the quarterback overall. Brady/Manning are not athletic, and more importantly, they simply blow away Alex Smith's individual statistics. It's not even close. You know what else? In fact, Alex Smith is more athletic than both Jay Cutler and Tony Romo, so Ross Tucker is not only wrong in comparing Smith to Manning/Brady but he is also wrong that Smith isn't more physically talented than Cutler/Romo. That's not true.

Or perhaps the argument is that Smith hasn't been asked to carry as much of the load as the other two. There probably is some truth to that, but whose fault is that?

Whose fault is it that his head coach doesn't have the trust in him to carry a larger load? Well, in terms of fault I would say that's the quarterback's fault for not instilling enough confidence that he can get the job done with a heavier load. 

All a quarterback can do is carry out the coaching staff's game plan to the best of his ability and Smith has done that at an extremely high level for three straight seasons.

And yet another irrelevant comment. It doesn't matter if Smith has carried out the game plan or not. What's being questioned is whether Smith deserves the same amount of money as Romo and Cutler when his individual performance isn't as impressive and he carries less of a load than Romo and Cutler. Based on this, he does not deserve as much money as them because he isn't as valuable to his team as Romo and Cutler may be.

It’s not as if Smith hasn't produced at all. He threw 23 touchdowns and only seven interceptions in 15 games last year with a new team in a new offense while winning 11 of those contests.

That's great. It in no way means he deserves to be paid like Tony Romo, who threw 31 touchdowns and only 10 interceptions. Jay Cutler threw 19 touchdowns and 12 interceptions in 11 games. A guy whose career high of 23 touchdown passes doesn't necessarily deserve a contract in excess of $100 million. There's a big gap between saying "it's not like he hasn't produced at all" and that quarterback deserving to be one of the highest paid quarterbacks in the NFL.

And it's not like he's throwing to the same caliber of weapons that Romo and Cutler have at their disposal. Frankly, it's not even close.

And neither Cutler or Romo had the defense that Smith had last year in Kansas City. In fact, it's not even close. The Chiefs defense gave up 19.1 points per game, while the Bears and Cowboys defenses gave up 29.9 and 27.0 points per game respectively. So there's that little bit of information that Ross Tucker conveniently ignores. Romo and Cutler were asked to score almost 10 more points per game to win a game than Smith was asked to score. Think that plays a part in each quarterback's win-loss record last year?

Smith thinks he deserves what those guys make and I don't blame him.
Not one bit.

You don't have to blame Smith, but it doesn't make right. I do enjoy how Ross Tucker used the team-achievement approach to stating Smith is on-par with Romo and Cutler while saying that he doesn't only look at a quarterback's win-loss record. I enjoy it, because well, that's the entire basis for his argument that Smith should be paid like Cutler and Romo were paid.

9 comments I'm Not 100% Sure Mike Florio Thought This List Through

Mike Florio lists the five quarterbacks who need to be benched. That is what this column is about, or at least what I think it is about. I am actually not sure because the only thing these five quarterbacks have in common is there really isn't a more viable option available as the backup quarterback behind them on their team. So benching these quarterbacks would do very little good to help the team win games this year. There is one quarterback who I think should be possibly benched out of this group, but I still don't like Florio's reasoning for benching him.

Florio runs ProFootballTalk, which is one of my favorite NFL sites, so I sort of feel like I am critiquing another blogger. Of course when you write columns for NBCSports I guess the status of a person as a "blogger" goes out the window.

Regardless, let's see why Mike Florio thinks these quarterbacks should be benched.

As training camp approaches and with every team in the valley of 0-0 and having a one-in-four chance (in theory) of winning the division and hosting a playoff game, optimism causes many fans to believe that their quarterback can -- and will -- not only survive but even thrive.

Mike Florio is here to crush this optimism by demanding your starting quarterback be benched and replaced with a potentially more underwhelming backup quarterback. Mediocrity can be yours!

Remember, this article is about which quarterbacks need to be benched, not which quarterbacks shouldn't even be starting quarterbacks in the NFL. If a person writes a quarterback needs to get benched, then there sure as hell better be a backup on the roster who can take over and be successful. After all, if this isn't the case then why bench your quarterback?

In some cities, the handwriting is already on the wall, plain to see for anyone who cares to notice.

Is it possible to bench a quarterback before he has even officially played a game as the starter? I would argue this is not possible. So this is a list of quarterbacks who shouldn't start for their team in the first game of the season. Oh, semantics. Anyway, I am getting sidetracked...

Jake Delhomme, Browns

Coach Eric Mangini recently said the starting job in Cleveland is Delhomme's to lose.

Don't tempt Jake Delhomme to lose the starting job. He will lose that starting job quicker than you can say, "he still owes me $150 for the 2009 playoff game debacle against the Cardinals."

I actually agree with this choice, but Delhomme should probably never have been signed in the first place. Of course he already has been signed, so there is nothing the Browns can do about that now. Since he has been signed he may be, may be, the best quarterback on the roster. Seneca Wallace probably isn't the answer, Colt McCoy isn't ready, and Brett Ratliff doesn't appear to be ready either. That leaves Jake Delhomme.

Delhomme lost his fastball at some point during the 13 days between Week 17 of the 2008 regular season and the divisional round of the playoffs. Though the Browns regard it as an aberration, it's unlikely that a guy would simply fall off the horse at an advanced stage of his career then find the stirrups again.

Delhomme actually played shitty from the January 2009 playoff game to the day that he "hurt" his thumb and finally pulled from the field by John Fox this past year. After he got hurt, the Panthers team started playing better, but I am sure that is a coincidence. So the aberration of a bad performance on the field the Browns saw lasted a total of 12 games...or as it is better known, nearly the entire amount of games Brady Quinn was given a chance to be the starting quarterback for the Browns.

David Garrard, Jaguars

The coach doesn't really believe in him. The owner doesn't really believe in him. So why in the heck is Garrard the Jaguars' starting quarterback?

Because the two quarterbacks behind Garrard are Luke McCown and Trevor Harris. Still think it is a good idea to bench Garrard? I don't.

In turn, the Jaguars should have found a better option in the offseason. They clearly don't love the guy. It makes no sense to keep him around.

So the Jaguars shouldn't bench Garrard, but should have found a better quarterback in the offseason. If only they had a time machine and could go back in time and sign a better quarterback than David Garrard and then go back further in time and not sign Garrard to a contract extension. "They should have signed another quarterback" was the same thing Florio said for the Browns about how they should not have signed Jake Delhomme. Perhaps this article could have been called, "5 Teams Who Should Have Signed Better Quarterbacks This Offseason," rather than the article being about quarterbacks getting benched.

Kyle Orton, Broncos

Like Orton wasn't on this list...we all know what's on the other side of Orton being bench....Tebow!

The decision to trade for Brady Quinn and to draft Tim Tebow hardly represents a vote of confidence for Orton, whose contract-year performance was rewarded with only a first-round restricted free-agent tender.

Thinking the decision to trade for Brady Quinn and draft Tim Tebow doesn't represent a vote of confidence for Kyle Orton also presupposes that Josh McDaniels has a master plan at all. I don't know if that is an assumption I am willing to make at this point. The Broncos got Brady Quinn for next-to-nothing and then McDaniels got lost in Tebow's eyes and the thickness of his biceps and felt the need to draft him. I don't know if there is a plan at the quarterback position in Denver to be honest. I need more information at this time.

So why do the Broncos insist on keeping him at the top of the depth chart? If, somehow, he plays well in 2010, it'll be harder to move on in 2011.

It won't be harder to move on in 2011 because the Broncos have Tim Tebow on the roster. Everyone loves Tebow! He's a future Hall of Fame quarterback! Haven't we already determined this?

The fact a quarterback may play well during the season and make it tough on the team to trade him or not be able to re-sign him isn't a good reason to get rid of that quarterback. That's just crazy talk. The fear of success by a quarterback is a poor reason to bench that quarterback. Kyle Orton playing so well that the Broncos have to re-sign him is a problem they would most likely like to have...especially since there may not be NFL games in 2011 due to a lockout.

The better move would be to get Tebow ready and get him on the field.

Great idea! Here's how to get Tim Tebow ready and get him on the field: Find a way to move time ahead one year and make it July 2011 and then hope that Tebow has improved enough in a year to be a starter in the NFL at that point. This shouldn't be hard, other than the whole scientific argument that time-travel isn't possible.

If the Broncos thought enough of Tebow to trade back into Round 1 to draft him, they simply should get him on the field.

They will get him on the field, but because a team chose a quarterback isn't the first round doesn't necessarily mean that quarterback has to be the starter for the upcoming year.

I am pretty sure there is a stiff debate on whether a quarterback is better served sitting on the bench or starting in his rookie year, so it isn't a given that a first round quarterback should automatically start in his rookie year. Mike Florio may have had heard something previously about this debate in the past, but I guess we know which side of the discussion he lands on.

Matt Moore, Panthers

After cutting Delhomme, the Panthers handed the ball to Moore.

They actually handed the ball to Matt Moore while Delhomme was still injured and there is a pretty good chance Moore would have started this year even with Delhomme on the roster...or at least he deserved to start.

Then the Panthers drafted a QB in Round 2 prepared to step in and play right away.

Mike Florio's vast experience at evaluating quarterbacks he has gained while writing an NFL blog and being an attorney tells him something every team that passed on Clausen did not know how NFL ready he was. That's what it seems since he is VERY confident Clausen can play right now.

What makes Florio think Clausen is prepared to play right away? He was considered "the most NFL-ready" quarterback in the draft? That means nothing.

So why not just give Jimmy Clausen the ball right now?

Maybe because he hasn't yet beat out the #2 guy on the depth chart, Hunter Cantwell, out for the job yet. Not to mention Matt Moore has a 6-2 career record as a starter, so he deserves a shot to be the #1 quarterback on the depth chart and try to win the job as the #1 quarterback on the depth chart.

If coach John Fox wants to stick around after 2010, he must show that Clausen can be the long-term answer at quarterback.

For a guy who runs a site that deals with NFL rumors and fact, Mike Florio sure has a poor grip on the John Fox coaching situation in Charlotte. Fox isn't a threat to be fired, he would be given a new contract if Jerry Richardson wasn't holding the line for the owners and cutting payroll in preparation for a strike. At this point, Fox is more inclined to go to another team on his own accord because he feels disrespected rather than from any threat the Panthers may not re-sign him. This is just lazy analysis of the situation.

I don't see how it makes sense to give the starting quarterback job to a rookie rather than a guy who has proven at the tail-end of last year he can win games. Why waste an offense that has a great running game, a good offensive line and one great receiver with a rookie at the helm if another guy has shown he deserves a shot to run the offense?

Matt Leinart, Cardinals

A top-10 pick in '06, Leinart hasn't been able to win and hold the job.

It doesn't help of course that Leinart has had Kurt Warner in front of him on the depth chart. Not to excuse Leinart's underachieving play, but it is not like the Cardinals should replace Leinart with Warner over the last two years while Warner is playing very well.

Injured in '07 after routinely being yanked for Kurt Warner when the going got tough, Leinart surprisingly landed on the bench shortly before the '08 season. He then watched Warner cement his Hall of Fame credentials.

Leinart may be a bust at the quarterback position, but he also probably deserves a chance to try and win the quarterback job in training camp, not just get benched before training camp.

Plus, who else is going to quarterback the Cardinals that is better than Leinart? Jake Delhomme-lite? (Derek Anderson) John Skelton or Max Hall, both guys who are rookies and not even close to being ready to start in the NFL? There aren't better options available at this point. Good quarterbacks just aren't laying around waiting to be signed.

So it's unclear why the team still has faith in Leinart. The best argument for keeping him on the field flows from the fact that the only other viable option is Derek Anderson.

So Leinart shouldn't be benched then? I love the idea that Mike Florio is writing a column about quarterbacks who should be benched before training camp, but three of the quarterbacks he writes about don't have a viable backup quarterback on the roster to play in place of the benched quarterback.

So why should Leinart get benched if there is a guy who is worse that would step in for him? In a perfect world, the Cardinals would have a replacement in the wings, but that isn't the case.

The Cardinals should have aggressively pursued other options in the offseason, whether Donovan McNabb or Marc Bulger.

So this is another situation where this article isn't really about quarterbacks who should have been benched and instead is about quarterbacks who should have been replaced in the offseason with a better quarterback. Is Marc Bulger really even a better option? He is 32 years old, injury-prone, and had his last good season in 2006. He's a great backup, but I don't know how I feel about him as a starter at this point.

Whatever the hell the Cardinals should have, could have or would have done doesn't matter at this point. They didn't sign a better quarterback, and because they don't have a better option to play the quarterback position doesn't mean their starting quarterback should be benched. You only bench a quarterback is there is a better option available and from his time in Cleveland over the last two years, Derek Anderson doesn't seem to qualify as a better option.

-Someone in the media, Ross Tucker, finally calls out Brett Favre for his diva-behavior and his blatant attempt to miss training camp. The title is "Brett Doesn't Deserve To Be Treated Like a Leader."

It is not super-harsh, but I will take whatever I can get. Here are some of my favorite parts for those who don't want to read it...

Unlike guys who may hold out in an attempt to get more money, he seems fine with the $13 million the Vikings are offering him in 2010. And even though Favre is supposedly still deciding whether he wants to play a 20th season in the NFL, the prevailing school of thought is that he'll be back. So what's the deal with possibly skipping training camp?

Because he can and Brad Childress lets him get away with it.

The Favre apologists are quick to point out that he has earned this type of special treatment based upon his status and longevity in the league. If that's the case, didn't Jerry Rice earn it as well? Or Emmitt Smith? Not to mention offensive linemen who played into their 40s, like Bruce Matthews and Jackie Slater. I'm pretty sure they all earned the right not to attend the worst three or four weeks of the year without facing the possibility of being fined, but I don't remember them skipping out on their teammates.

He can do this because he is Brett Favre. Haven't you seen the articles written about him? He is gritty, plays like a child and is the epitome of what every parent should want their child to grow up to be if they want their child to grow up to be a Vicodin-guzzling (that was old-school Favre), drama-queen, interception throwing quarterback who gets a pass because he is just so damn fun to watch play.

Is he worried about the intense practices? Sorry, but as a former offensive lineman I am not going to let a quarterback who wears a red jersey in practice attempt to get away with that excuse. That red jersey he wears means he is not allowed to even be touched, so Favre's gotta come up with something better than that.

See, he doesn't have to come up with something better than that. He's Brett-fucking-Favre and he can do whatever the hell he wants and will manipulate the media and fans into believing he is always right.

Does anyone honestly think head coach Brad Childress would ask Favre to throw one more football than he wants to? Didn't think so. Favre could easily be on a pitch count if he wanted. Heck, it could be the exact same number of throws he makes every day at Oak Grove High in Mississippi.

He just doesn't want to be subjected to the harsh conditions that training camp imposes on him. He doesn't have to be a good teammate because his coach doesn't force him to be. Brett Favre wins football games and he gets to play by a different set of rules.

My point is not that Favre's desire to skip training camp will have an adverse effect on the Vikings season, because clearly, based on their success last year, that isn't the concern. My point is that Favre is not deserving of being a team leader if he misses training camp this year. There doesn't appear to be any good reason for him to not be there, other than he can get away with it. But that means it's all about him again, as, sadly, it usually is.

This is the first column of many I want to see written like this. Some major columnist somewhere has to take Brett Favre to task for pretending he doesn't know he is coming back to the NFL just so he can skip training camp. Adrian Peterson got fined for missing a mini-camp earlier this summer and just because Favre is "undecided" doesn't mean he should get a free pass. He isn't retired and is under contract so he should be in training camp or be fined for his absence.