3 comments Hey Everyone, Woody Paige Has a Really Terrible Idea!

Woody Paige's work hasn't been seen much on this blog lately. Ever since Tim Tebow was traded by the Broncos to the Jets Woody hasn't been as obviously terrible in his writing. In fact, it's been two years since I posted something written by Woody Paige on this blog. But boy, look at what a run Woody was on there for a while. That's what worshiping Tebow will get you. Today, Woody Paige believes it is a good idea to bring Mike Shanahan back as an aide on the Broncos staff. If this weren't the real world then this would be a great idea. An experienced coach to add to the Broncos staff? Great idea, do it. Unfortunately, this is the real world and the addition of a Super Bowl-winning head coach to the Broncos staff, much less a Super Bowl-winning coach who was still an NFL head coach until last year, much less a Super Bowl-winning coach who won his two Super Bowls with the Broncos is just not a good idea. The last thing John Fox's heart needs is a guy who won two Super Bowls with the very team Fox coaches looking over his shoulder. Terrible idea.

After the disgusting, dissatisfying loss in the Super Bowl, 

The Broncos got their ass-kicked by one of the best defenses of the last 20 years. These things happen. 

John Elway has quickly and decisively proved with the signings of The Big Three the past week that the Broncos are all in again for the 2014 season.

Considering Peyton Manning is in the twilight of his career, it's probably best for the Broncos to go all-in now. It's not like Manning will be around in 3-5 years, so the Broncos want to win a Super Bowl or two now and not wait to build a team. By the way, if the Broncos want to succeed in the short-term, hiring Mike Shanahan will not help accomplish this. 

The best remaining, available free agent who would cost a pittance and serve an invaluable role for the Broncos is ... Mike Shanahan.

Calm down and read on.

No one is upset. It simply doesn't make sense. There's no need to introduce a Super Bowl-winning coach to look over John Fox's shoulder. 

Why not bring back the Mastermind for his fourth cycle in Denver? The previous three times Shanahan was teamed with Elway and the Broncos, they played in five Super Bowls — and won two championships.

Because bringing back Mike Shanahan could easily create a power struggle where John Elway (who obviously respects Shanahan) could be forced to choose between what his current head coach and Mike Shanahan think is best for the team. Plus, Mike Shanahan hasn't shown he can win football games without John Elway as his quarterback, so I'm not even sure he's still "the Mastermind" by any stretch of the imagination. Hiring Shanahan is a needless distraction the Broncos don't need. 

Unlike before, Shanahan shouldn't be the supreme commander, the general manager, the head coach, the offensive coordinator or even the quarterbacks coach.

And of course I must ask why Woody Paige seems to think Mike Shanahan would be perfectly happy having very little authority in the Broncos organization. Does Mike Shanahan seem like the kind of guy who gladly takes a backseat to others? 

But he could be an aide-de-camp for John Fox, an offensive consultant for Adam Gase and Peyton Manning, a running game guru and a confidant for Elway

Shanahan could easily go from being an aide for Fox, a consultant for Gase and Manning and a confidant to Elway to becoming the person who meddles in Fox's decisions, ruins the chemistry Gase/Manning have, and becomes a second respected voice in Elway's ear that clouds organizational decisions. The cost/benefit analysis doesn't work in favor of Shanahan being hired by the Broncos. 

Why not?

Why not? The same reason Woody wouldn't hire his ex-wife as a therapist for him and his current wife. It's the same reason the Colts wouldn't keep Peyton Manning around to tutor Andrew Luck (besides money, of course).

In November 2010, when the Broncos were at the depths of despair, I recommended here that Pat Bowlen hire Elway to be executive VP of football operations. Many inside and outside the operation ridiculed the idea, claiming Elway was a gentleman golfer unqualified for the job.

Woody was also the person who thought Tim Tebow was a super-grand quarterback and the Broncos should do whatever they can to keep him around. Notice how Woody amplifies his hits and doesn't mention his misses. 

Elway came back and produced another Broncos comeback to relevance.

Yes, that was a good call. Elway produced the Broncos comeback to relevance after he dumped the quarterback you were obsessed with, but I guess that's beside the point. 

The Broncos hired Alex Gibbs as an offensive line consultant last season. He had worked for the franchise twice previously and was assistant head coach for years (under Shanahan). Gibbs departed last week.

Oh, well if guys who worked with Shanahan are leaving the Broncos organization then it makes perfect sense for Shanahan to come back and work for the Broncos in an aide capacity and not at all in a coaching capacity, because I'm sure he'll be perfectly fine with that and isn't at all wanting to regain his reputation as a genius head coach. Shanahan wouldn't meddle, not at all. 

When veteran coach Fox was fired by the Carolina Panthers, he contemplated becoming a consigliere to Andy Reid in Philadelphia.

John Fox wasn't fired by Carolina. His contract wasn't renewed. What good are facts when Woody has a point he wants to prove? 

Then, the Denver position was offered. Several other prominent ex-NFL head coaches have become team advisers.

Fox seems like he only contemplated this position with the Eagles for an hour or so, because he was hired by the Broncos on January 13, very shortly after the 2010 season ended. It's fine for ex-NFL head coaches to become team advisors, but these ex-NFL head coaches aren't necessarily advising teams they won Super Bowls with less than a year after their last head coaching job.

The 61-year-old Shanahan has spent 37 seasons as a coach, 29 years in pro football, six as a Broncos assistant and 14 as the head coach (1995-2008). He has three Super Bowls rings (the other as the San Francisco 49ers offensive coordinator) and coached in 10 conference championships (seven with the Broncos).

And this is a man who will be perfectly willing to set aside his ego and provide advice while others make decisions? Yeah, right. 

Sure, he has been fired three times as a head coach — by Oakland, Denver and Washington (on Dec. 30, 2013). Tom Landry and Paul Brown were fired. They're in the Hall of Fame.

They weren't fired three times though. 

Shanahan is out of work, and there are no head coaching jobs left. He's too young to retire, though.

And he probably wouldn't mind having another head coaching job. So the last thing John Fox needs is Mike Shanahan, Denver legend and coach to John Elway, hanging out in the shadows as a replacement for him should the Broncos start to underachieve. Does it really make sense to bring back an old head coach like Shanahan who is still stinging from a power struggle with the Redskins that led to him being fired? Shanahan has always seemed like a Type A guy and he's probably pretty excited to restore his reputation as the Mastermind. Not sure that bodes well for him taking an aide position in the Broncos organization.

Before Manning joined the Broncos, he met with Shanahan, and after he signed, he stayed in Shanahan's home for a few months while the coach was in D.C.

Again, it's not a good idea to bring Mike Shanahan on-board unless the Broncos are really sure he's fine with sitting back, giving advice, and then going about his merry way once his advice is taken/not taken. I'm not sure Shanahan would be capable of doing this. I have been wrong once before, it was many years ago, but it just seems to be bringing in Mike Shanahan in any capacity brings in a person who has relationships with current Broncos players and management that could undermine John Fox. 

In 1984, Dan Reeves lured a 31-year-old Shanahan from Florida to tutor Elway, and the quarterback and the assistant became chess partners, golf buddies and tight friends for the next 15 years. The relationship strained after Elway retired in 1999.

The question is whether Shanahan could take a backseat and simply be an aide. Considering he has requested as much power over football operations as he could get in every head coaching job he has been offered, I have a hard time believing Shanahan could come back to the Broncos in such a passive position. 

When Shanahan reappeared at the stadium last season for the Washington-Denver game, the Broncos gave him a scoreboard-screen salute, and the crowd gave him a warm welcome.

Say the Broncos start next season 1-2 and there is Mike Shanahan waiting in the wings as an aide. He has relationships with Elway and Manning and the Broncos fans love him. Writers like Woody Paige float the idea that Mike Shanahan coach the team for the rest of the season. After all, Shanahan is already with the Broncos organization.

Obviously Elway wouldn't just fire John Fox, but it would be a distraction. For a team trying to win now this isn't an ideal situation to bring in unneeded drama into the organization. Maybe there would be no drama, but the Broncos seem to be doing fine without Mike Shanahan's help and I'm afraid if things go sideways for the Broncos his presence in the organization could serve as a distraction. 

Shanahan certainly did have issues as an overlord micromanager in Denver and Washington, and his teams have struggled since 2005.

He's overbearing or overly-involved in all decisions made and his reputation as a head coach doesn't match the reality of his coaching record since 2005, what could go wrong? 

Mike would help the Broncos — if his role is well-defined, and confined, by Bowlen, Elway and Fox.

Even if his role is well-defined, is this a role Shanahan would be willing to take? This well-defined role could be expanded at some point. Say Fox has another heart attack or temporary medical setback and Shanahan could take on a different role (which would probably involve more micro-managing, his favorite thing). What happens when Fox comes back? Does Woody really think the transition from Del Rio to Fox would have been as smooth last year if Mike Shanahan was a part of the Broncos organization? I doubt it. Sure, Shanahan could request little responsibility and be happy as a passive observer offering advice, but this goes against everything he has shown during his head coaching career. Woody can't conveniently forget this. 

Shanahan could work with Manning and Gase in film study and creative game-planning,

Gase will wish that he had taken the Browns head coaching job when he could because I'm betting Shanahan would run all over Gase in film study and in game-planning. I can't imagine how having a Super Bowl-winning coach and ex-offensive coordinator looking over your shoulder while working with Peyton Manning could be an issue. 

give counsel to Elway and Fox

They don't need counsel. They are doing fine without Shanahan's counsel. In fact, Elway and Fox's counsel is much better than Shanahan's counsel at this point. 

and offer suggestions from upstairs during games and to skill-position players at practices.

Oh yes, "offer suggestions from upstairs during games," which Shanahan will take to mean, "help us coach the Broncos team and maybe call some plays." 

Lest the thought be dismissed readily, Shanahan as coach and de facto GM surrounded Elway with enough free agents and draft choices (16 new starters, including Terrell Davis) to win Super Bowls XXXII and XXXIII.

Woody, that was the past. This is the present. Mike Shanahan hasn't shown himself to be that coach in almost a decade now. Plus, the fact Shanahan did such a great job as de facto GM and coach with the Broncos only serves to underscore my point that having Shanahan around would only undermine Fox/Gase and serve as a distraction. 

He has been there and done that with Elway.

Fox has been there and done that with Elway too. Just last year. 

And Shanahan is a free, literally, agent.

Trust me, he won't be free, and bringing aboard a Super Bowl-winning coach as an aide fresh off a head coaching failure isn't always a good decision. Bringing this Super Bowl-winning coach back to the organization he won his Super Bowls with and knowing this Super Bowl-winning coach has a history of micro-management and participating in power struggles is an even worse idea. It sounds good on paper, but in reality I don't see how this could work unless Mike Shanahan has changed dramatically in the last four months. 

3 comments MMQB Review: Much to Peter's Surprise, Week 17 Was Exciting Edition

Peter King thought this was a better-than-expected Week 17 and this surprised him. I guess he thought the last week of the season was going to be boring, outside of him getting to see J.J. Watt and Andrew Luck in person of course. This week in MMQB, Peter talks about the surprising Redskins (why didn't anyone tell the media that was too busy covering the Jets that the Redskins were a good team?), reviews his preseason picks, and then does a really strange listing of eulogies for those who died during 2012. Along with including haikus in MMQB this has been a kind of strange year for Peter and MMQB.

What a regular season. What a year. What a Sunday.

J.J. Watt? As Salt-N-Pepa say, what a man.

And there was Adrian Peterson, beat up, needing 208 yards to break the all-time single-season rushing record, which seemed the impossible dream.

Peter King refers to Adrian Peterson's hunt for the single-season rushing record in hyperbolic terms as "the impossible dream." This from a guy who expects us to take him seriously when he starts talking about political matters. Perhaps when he stops referring to a sports record as "the impossible dream" I can take his opinion on gun control more seriously.

That was about it. Where was the drama in the AFC? All six playoff teams locked.

Yeah, where is the drama? You can't expect MMQB to write itself, people. Make it easy to write MMQB and give Peter King manufactured drama. Otherwise, there is no reason for him to continue writing on a weekly basis about the NFL and we would get an entire MMQB about Peter describing his coffee habits and complaining about the people he meets in public.

it's Denver, New England and Houston, and the Texans have to come to work today to prepare for a wild-card game they had no desire to play.

This must be as opposed to AFC teams like Baltimore, Cincinnati, and Indianapolis who didn't want to get a first round bye and really, really, really wanted to play a wild-card game this weekend.

Not to mention the fact that the Patriots and Broncos are one home win from a Manning-Brady AFC title game in the Rockies.

DRRRRAMA! Super-good times for Peter!

And we didn't count on Green Bay-Minnesota being one of the three or four best games of the year ... and Peterson making us hold our breath as he climbed toward a record he had no business breaking,

Well, it was the impossible dream after all.

and Minnesota trying to beat its arch rival to scratch and claw into the playoffs, and Peterson making a mess of what should have been a Peyton Manning MVP-walkaway.

Doesn't Adrian Peterson know the narrative was already written? Peyton Manning was going to win the MVP award this year. But noooooooooo, Peterson has to go and show how he may deserve the MVP trophy for 2012. Selfish prick.

On the field as time ticked down late Sunday night and FedEx Field rocked, Griffin said to Morris: "We came here as rookies this year, and they hadn't won the NFC East in forever. And we won it. Now look at us -- the sky's the limit!''

Look at Robert Griffin speaking English in a most fine manner...just like a good ol' cornball brother would do. Being all literate and successful and shit. Help "the cause" Robert Griffin and start "acting black," whatever the fuck that means.

The end of the Tebow Error with the Jets;

I see what you did there Peter! The Sportswriter of the Year award is now yours for the taking.

The Chiefs getting the first pick in the quarterback-starved 2013 draft -- just not knowing who will make that pick with the fate of GM Scott Pioli still up in the air. Peyton Manning finishing the second-most prolific passing season of his life (4,659 yards, 37 touchdowns), an event made all the more impressive by the fact he had his first padded practice with the Broncos five months ago.

And here we all thought Peyton Manning had forgotten how to play football while watching during the entire 2011 season.

The whole nine yards.
(Stole that from Sam Farmer of the LA Times. More about that later.)

More on Peter King stealing a headline later, but for now he's stealing the last bagel off the hotel buffet and hurrying to make it to Starbucks in time to complain about the long lines and criticize how other people dare to live their lives.

Fifteen seconds left. They unpiled. Peterson got up, quickly for a man who'd just carried for the 34th time with a sore groin and abdomen. Thirteen, 12, 11 ...

Would Vikes coach Leslie Frazier, who'd said he'd do nothing out of the ordinary to get Peterson the record, call time and run another play?

Sean Payton would have had Christian Ponder run backwards for 20 yards out of bounds and then try to get Peterson the single-season rushing record on the next play or two. Sean Payton thinks no one will remember the Vikings made the playoffs, but everyone will remember the Adrian Peterson personal achievement in breaking the single-season rushing record.

Frazier played it exactly right. If the record was going to happen, it'd have to come within the confines of doing everything to try to win the game. This wasn't going to be some cheap Nykesha Sales kind of record.

Or like Brett Favre taking a dive so Michael Strahan can get the single-season sack record? That's probably the first cheap record that comes to a lot of NFL fan's minds, but Peter can't go about criticizing Lord Favre like that. Favre didn't take a dive at all. He just fell. If you believe that...

I told Peterson I liked how he went for the record, but I also liked how he and Frazier didn't do anything to force it.

You mean like run up the score on two teams at the end of the season so your running back and quarterback can achieve personal records? Who ever would do that?

(Sorry to read me constantly complain about that, but Sean Payton had a complete lack of sportsmanship in mind last year over the last two games and I will be over it at the approximate time Payton retires as an NFL head coach...which depending on how the Saints defense plays over the next few seasons could be 2-3 years. From now on, I will do my best to discontinue the angry, bitter criticisms of Payton...maybe.)

Such a tough call. I think it comes down to Manning and Peterson;

I don't know. Replace Peyton Manning with an average quarterback and I can see the Broncos still making the playoffs. After all, they play in a bad division and made the playoffs last year with a running back as their quarterback. Take away Adrian Peterson and replace him with an average running back and do you think the Vikings make the playoffs? I'm not so sure about that.

Quick thoughts on the four games in the Wild Card round:

Well, make it quick. I want to hear more about how you steal headlines from other writers.

Saturday, 4:30 p.m. ET (NBC), AFC: Cincinnati (No.6, 10-6) at Houston (No. 3, 12-4). The Texans have been thinking for weeks they were in line for a first-round bye, and so it has to be demoralizing to know that, instead of getting four or five days off this week, they have to get right back to work -- and on a short week, no less, with the Saturday game -- and prep for Cincinnati.

The reason I don't trust the Texans in the playoffs is because of this. They have lost three out of their last four games and played on Sunday like they just expected the Colts to roll over. I get they may not have wanted to show off any super-special bootleg plays they have in their playbook, but they have to do better than they did on Sunday. So to me, the Texans are a struggling team that seems to lack the ability/movation to win a playoff game right now. Plus, the game is on national television and Matt Schaub usually sucks when he is on national television.

I expect J.J. Watt will have something to say about that. Not only did he have a league-high 20.5 sacks this year, but also he added 39 tackles for loss or no gain on running plays. Think of that: 60 tackles of quarterbacks or backs at or behind the line of scrimmage. Almost four per game. Very close to call, but I'll go with Houston.

J.J. Watt is pretty much the difference in this game according to Peter King. Not a shocking pick or reasoning used coming from Peter.

The Packers can expect limited possessions, because Minnesota's game plan will surely be to have Adrian Peterson eat the clock with carry after carry, and Christian Ponder (with his newfound confidence) throw short and intermediate. If Rodgers is Rodgers, I expect Green Bay to move on.

Yes, but Rodgers was Rodgers on Sunday and the Packers still lost.

My reality: I voted Adrian Peterson for MVP (edging Manning), Peterson and J.J. Watt offensive and defensive player, twin 'Hawks Russell Wilson and Bobby Wagner offensive and defensive rookies, a tie between Manning and Peterson for comeback player,

Adrian Peterson played 75% of the year last year. Give the award to Peyton Manning. It's ridiculous to have Manning and Peterson tie for the Comeback Player of the Year award, but then give the MVP to Peterson. I realize Adrian Peterson coming back from his knee injury was very, very incredible, but he played the majority of the 2011 season. I wouldn't vote for him as Comeback Player of the Year.

and a tie between Chuck Pagano and Bruce Arians as coach of the year.

Just give the damn award to Bruce Arians. He coached the Colts for nearly the entire season. Yes, we all love Chuck Pagano's story and how inspirational he is, but he didn't coach the entire year. I don't see a reason to split the Coach of the Year vote in this situation. Just give it to Arians. You aren't being an asshole by not having Pagano share it with Arians.

Remember when we all looked at the Vikings' schedule a month ago, and we said the Vikings would never survive December, with Green Bay twice, Chicago once and Houston and St. Louis on the road? With Percy Harvin out for the year and Christian Ponder playing like -- Jimmy Johnson's words, not mine -- the worst quarterback in the league (non-Sanchez division, of course), what real hope did the Vikings have?

To be fair to Mark Sanchez, he doesn't have a running back like Adrian Peterson sharing the backfield with him. Without Adrian Peterson I think Christian Ponder could be worse than Mark Sanchez.

Defensive rookie: Bobby Wagner, edging Green Bay cornerback Casey Hayward and Carolina linebacker Luke Kuechly. Wagner turned a suspect group of Seattle linebackers, the weak point of the Seahawks defense, into a competitive group by being great against the run (more tackles than Patrick Willis) and good dropping into coverage (three interceptions, excellent instincts).

I'm not saying Kuechly should be Defensive Rookie of the Year, but once he took over from Jon Beason as the middle linebacker the Panthers defense went from the lower 20's in total defense to being #10 in the NFL in total defense. Kuechly had 24 more tackles than Wagner, recovered three more fumbles, had one less interception than Wagner but had more passes defensed and stuffs, and also had excellent instincts. Okay, maybe I am saying Kuechly should be Defensive Rookie of the Year. Either way, I don't care really, but if Peter wants to use this criteria then he should also acknowledge Kuechly was better than Wagner in nearly every important defensive category. Of course Wagner's team made the playoffs, which we all know is very important when discussing individual awards.

Coach: Some might pick Arians alone; some might pick one of many other deserving candidates. Some might say Pagano was 2-2 in the games he coached;

Some people may throw out "facts" or obvious reasons that Peter's line of thinking is wrong, but what these people don't understand is the emotion of the pick. Exclude all of the facts as to why Arians should win this award alone and just base it on emotion. That's all Peter King asks.

After traveling to Indianapolis in November for an SI story on the unexpected rise of the Colts in the absence of the leukemia-stricken Pagano, I saw how involved Pagano was. Scores of texts and phone calls, hours of watching practice tape, every day, while the chemotherapy flowed into a port in his chest ... And when I was out with GM Ryan Grigson one night, the phone rang, and it was Pagano. He was telling Grigson to remember to get a ball painted for reigning AFC Defensive Player of the Week Darius Butler, a player Pagano had never met. In other words, he was painstakingly involved in everything that happened with the team this season. Arians, 9-3 in his absence, was the hands-on coach who piloted the Colts into the playoffs. There you have the reason for my split vote.

The Colts trainer and assistant GM is also involved with the day-to-day operations of the team. Should they also share the Coach of the Year award with Bruce Arians? I get Pagano did some scouting and coaching from the sidelines, but Bruce Arians was the day-to-day head coach. It takes nothing away from Pagano and his fight against leukemia if he doesn't share this award with Bruce Arians.

Fine Fifteen

2. New England (12-4). One win by the Broncos and one by the Patriots ... That's all that stands in the way of a Peyton Manning-Tom Brady AFC Championship Game Jan. 20.

And really, after that game is there a reason to even play the Super Bowl? It would just be a let-down.

4. Green Bay (11-5). Tough one to lose at the Metrodome, but I don't see the loss hurting the Pack in the wild-card rematch at Lambeau.

As long as Rodgers is Rodgers. If you don't know exactly what that means, you aren't the only one.

7. Washington (10-6). I can see Seattle defensive coordinator Gus Bradley and his staff firing up the tape this morning and wondering how they're going to stop the unstoppable Redskin in their wild-card meeting Sunday. "Anybody got any ideas about putting a lid on Alfred Morris?'' he'll ask.

And? There has to be more, Peter! You have set up the beginning of an absolutely enthralling novel and just end it like that without any resolution?

15. St. Louis (7-8-1). A total makeover, and still Steven Jackson proved he's the perfect back for Jeff Fisher. He needs to return in 2013, and he sounds like he will.

Since Peter and Jeff Fisher share the same agent, the fact Peter talks up the Rams nearly every week isn't suspicious at all.

"Sean Payton might want to invest some of that $8 million in buying a defense for next year.''

-- Jim Szoke of the Carolina Radio Network, as the Panthers ran through the Saints Sunday, as relayed by ESPN NFC South blogger Pat Yasinkas from New Orleans.

Poking the bear that is Sean Payton never gets old to me. Well, it probably will get old at some point (and I know, I know, we are currently at that point), but I still enjoy it. I heard all year that the Saints defense was having trouble grasping the intricacies of Steve Spagnuolo, but I think it is more possible the Saints defense just wasn't very good during the 2012 season.

Sean Payton can't start working with his team again until approximately April 19, the start of the official Saints' offseason program, and that must be maddening for such a micromanaging worker bee. But when he does, he has to start working anew with Drew Brees on his efficiency.

Yes, Sean Payton should work on the quarterback who threw for 5000 yards this year, while ignoring the defense that gave up over 7000 yards of offense to opposing teams.

I've heard Payton noticed one glaring thing about Brees when he watched Saints' games this year while serving his year suspension -- how many times he took chances downfield when the chances really were long shots, and when his focus should have turned from the deep ball to the checkdown or intermediate ball. That's a big reason his completion percentage without Payton was a shell of what it was with him.

Drew Brees completion percentage was 63%. Yes, he had a higher completion percentage with Payton as his head coach, but it isn't like Brees was terrible. Brees is a terrific quarterback and will be fine. If anything, Sean Payton needs to notice from watching Saints games is how the hell he is going to fix the Saints defense.

Then Peter writes a travel note about someone else's traveling difficulties. It's bad enough when Peter tells us about his travel issues during a given week, but relaying a travel note from a sportswriter who isn't himself seems like something that is completely irrelevant for Peter's readership.

"Brings new meaning to the term 'the whole nine yards.' "

-- @LATimesfarmer, football writer Sam Farmer of the Los Angeles Times, just after Adrian Peterson finished nine yards shy of breaking Eric Dickerson's single-season rushing record.

Apparently this was such an interesting Tweet that Peter felt compelled to steal it and then tease us about why he stole it. A lot of buildup for this one.

1. I think this is what I liked about Week 17:

c. On the first play of Colts-Texans, it was fitting J.J. Watt broke through the line and broke up the handoff play, leading to a one-yard loss.

Yes, it was very fitting. Then after that? What did Watt do after that Peter "Cherry-Pick" King? He had three more tackles and a pass defensed. Much like the Texans team as a whole, Watt started off strong and then didn't do a whole lot after that. It's not terrible for a defensive lineman to only have four tackles, but Peter picks one play and then tries to make it seem like Watt had a terrific game.

d. Rueben Randle. Two touchdowns in the first nine minutes. Just 21 years old.

Wow, more fun with numbers. Peter leaves out the fact Randle had 250 yards and one touchdown prior to this game. Randle may have a bright future, but two touchdowns in the first nine minutes of one game does not a career make.

n. Michael Crabtree: eight catches, 172 yards, two touchdowns. We're seeing the dawn of a great receiver's career, I believe.

Yes, and he is only 25 years old. I hope Michael Crabtree makes the Hall of Fame so Gregg Easterbrook can continue to pretend he didn't invent the "Crabtree Curse" and didn't repeatedly tell us Michael Crabtree was dragging the 49ers team down.

2. I think this is what I didn't like about Week 17:

b. Nnamdi Asomugha, who has had 17 forgettable (but profitable) months as an Eagles savior.

Remember back when Peter King said Asomugha was a Top 10 NFL player? I do and I bet Peter King would like to forget that comment.

h. Too many officials look too heavy to me.

Pot, meet kettle. Of course Peter's job doesn't require him to keep up with world-class athletes, but that shouldn't really matter. Either way, NFL officials are probably in better shape than Peter King.

It's absurd that a guy gets in on name recognition while missing 44 percent of the games one year and 38 percent of the game in another year. That's one of many reasons -- but a big one -- why I treat the Pro Bowl with back-of-the-hand deference. It deserves it.

I could probably get upset about my favorite team's Pro Bowl snubs, but that would mean I think the Pro Bowl actually means something for me to get worked up over it. The Pro Bowl is pointless and I haven't watched it in a decade. I don't need voters to tell which players are the best at each position. There are better measurements to tell me this then what a popularity contest tells me. 

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

a. You never told me about Homeland.

Because it is the responsibility of Peter's readers to inform him of what is or is not a good television show. We are all Peter's servants who only exist to hear his weekly complaints and give him information upon demand. If Peter is a fan of television and hasn't heard how good "Homeland" is then that's on him.

Daughter Laura gave me the first season of the show on DVD for Christmas,

On DVD? I didn't realize it was 2002.

c. Saw two movies over the holidays. Silver Linings Playbook I liked a lot; Bradley Cooper and Jennifer Lawrence were superb, and the story felt real. And I saw on a movie channel Contagion, the doomy Matt Damon/Laurence Fishburne job. Liked that one too, particularly the way the contagion is researched and sourced back to bats.

Thank you for updating us on the movies you watched recently. Of course I shouldn't expect anything different from a man who tells us in-depth about his bowel troubles while on a plane.

g. Coffeenerdness: Just my luck Sunday to get behind the Parisians with the $47 order in line at Starbucks in Manhattan. They must love that bisciotti. Got nine of them.

I know. Peter is such an unlucky guy. He gets paid enough money to purchase expensive, mediocre coffee everyday. Gosh, when will Peter ever get a break in his life?

Among those we lost in a particularly sad year for deaths:

Is this as opposed to a year that doesn't have a lot of sad deaths? I remember back in 2005 when it wasn't really sad to have a bunch of people die. These people all deserved to die. 2012 though? What a sad year for deaths.

Vidal Sassoon, hair guy. Cut and sprayed a lot of famous people's hair.

Thanks for the tribute, Peter. Touching and heartfelt.

Why even do these eulogies if Peter is going to be snide about some of the deaths? What does it contribute?

Donna Summer, singer. She worked hard for the money.

Yes, she did Peter. Yes, she did. I'm surprised Peter didn't get a chance to speak at Donna Summer's funeral. I'm getting teary right now just thinking about song titles he would have magnificently placed into his tribute to her.

Adieu Haiku

BobGriff v Wilson
Wild Card dream is coming true.
Will Obama watch?

Will Obama watch?
Who cares? Real question might be
Will Texans show up?

10 comments Jim Bowden Has Some Realignment Ideas To Share With Us

Every baseball season MLB starts to float the idea of realignment as sort of a testing the waters and saying, "Hey, does anyone have any feedback they'd like to give about this," while providing few specifics on what type of realignment would exactly occur. Baseball writers, even guys like me, start to jump on this idea. Without specifics, this leaves baseball writers with the idea of creating the new divisions and realignment themselves, which is always a dangerous situation. You never know what these suggestions will entail and which teams will be moved around, but there are two general rules I have noticed:

1. The Red Sox-Yankees will still be in the same division. Always.
2. The realignment usually evens out to 15 teams in the National and American League.

Jim Bowden has some ideas about realignment which not surprisingly stays true to these two rules, but he adds his own geographic twist to it as well. All together, a geographic realignment isn't the worst idea I have read, but I'm not sure how I like the fact the divisions are put together purely for rivalry reasons while breaking up other minor rivalries. Thanks to Martin for putting the link to this article in the comments. I felt like I had to cover the entire blog post/article by Bowden.

With Major League Baseball and the Players Association considering some form of realignment,

This happens nearly every baseball season, the owners and players considering realignment. I feel similar to this situation as I feel about the NFL lockout. Update me when you actually have an idea, rather than using the press as a way to float the possibility of an idea. In this article linked by Jim Bowden, here are the quotes that show both sides are considering realignment.

According to a highly ranked executive, one consideration that has been raised in ownership committee meetings is eliminating the divisions altogether, so that 15 AL and 15 NL teams would vie for five playoff spots within each league.

I'm not completely sure I would be against this. It is an interesting idea and depending on how MLB decided to design the season schedule I think this idea could work. If the schedule involves 20 Mets-Phillies games, compared to 10 Mets-Padres games then I may not like this idea as much. The schedule has to be balanced in some fashion.

A source who has been briefed on the specifics of the labor discussions says that the players' union has indicated that it is open to the idea of two 15-team leagues, but that the whole plan still hasn't been talked through or presented to the owners.

Sources say the talks are serious,

How can we call any talks serious until the idea has officially been presented to the owners? No idea will go through without the approval of the owners, so nothing can be serious until they have at least officially heard the idea.

and while one executive believes the odds of change are less than 50-50, another says this is the type of discussion that can gather momentum and become a reality.

So in summation (and this is why I wish we as a public would get updated when there is an actual idea):

1. There may be realignment.
2. There are serious talks about realigning the National and American League.
3. The owners haven't officially heard the proposal for realignment yet.
4. The odds are against there being realignment...but there could be at some point in the future...but not now probably...but it could happen.

So there's no real idea, even if there was an idea it hasn't been presented to the owners yet, even if it had been presented to the owners it probably wouldn't pass, but it could pass in the distant-not-too-distant future..................so you're telling me there's a chance?

A sticking point involves interleague play. Because of the odd number of teams in each league, it is possible that a team in contention late in the season will have to be playing its final games in interleague play.

That would be terrible! How could this happen? We wouldn't want a division winner to be decided based on two teams from different leagues playing each other during the final games of the season. Deciding which team gets homefield advantage in the World Series based on an exhibition game is perfectly fine of course. That makes sense...but having the final games of a season be interleague games is just unimaginable.

"There are still a lot of details that would have to be discussed," one source said.

Which is why this is the typical summer realignment discussion that doesn't ever appear to go anywhere. When it may actually end up happening, notify me then.

So that's the background on why Jim Bowden wrote his realignment idea blog post. It goes slightly downhill from here when it gets to Bowden's playoff structure idea, where he fails to realize an odd number of teams moving to the second round could create problems.

I would suggest geographic realignment, with six divisions of five teams each.

Geographic realignment? Sounds like a great idea then and it doesn't at all sound random. What happens if the Florida Marlins move to Los Angeles or Nebraska? What happens if two big rivals aren't in the same geographic area? For example, the Reds and Cardinals are in different divisions in Bowden's realignment suggestion. They don't get to be rivals anymore?

This, of course, would include the eradication of the American and National Leagues, as we know them, as well as the designated hitter rule.

So why would it get rid of the designated hitter rule again? Couldn't this realignment idea just as well have the designated hitter rule instituted throughout the majors? I don't like the DH that much, but I don't get why this realignment means the DH automatically goes away. There is still a National and American Lea---check that "Conference," (because apparently leaving the word "League" wouldn't represent enough change and there would now be a "National Conference" and an "American Conference"...which would ensure both leagues sound like they are just large business meetings) so why would the DH go away?

In "old school" terms, I realize my proposal would be considered radical, but here are my recommendations:

AMERICAN CONFERENCE	NATIONAL CONFERENCE
Eastern Division Boston Red Sox	Southeast Division Atlanta Braves
New York Mets	Baltimore Orioles
New York Yankees	Florida Marlins
Philadelphia Phillies	Tampa Bay Rays
Toronto Blue Jays	Washington Nationals
Central Division	Western Division
Cincinnati Reds	Arizona Diamondbacks
Cleveland Indians	Colorado Rockies
Detroit Tigers	Houston Astros
Minnesota Twins	Seattle Mariners
Pittsburgh Pirates	Texas Rangers
Midwest Division	California Division
Chicago White Sox	Los Angeles Dodgers
Kansas City Royals	Oakland Athletics
Milwaukee Brewers	San Diego Padres
St. Louis Cardinals	San Francisco Giants

My first observation is about these division names...are these serious?

The "California Division?"

"Southeast Division" with a team in Baltimore and Washington? I know the names of divisions aren't ever going to properly represent the location of the teams in that division, but if the entire point of the geographic realignment is to put teams in the same area together, shouldn't the name of that division also accurately reflect where those teams are located?

What the hell is the difference in the "Midwest Division" and the "Central Division?" Shouldn't we put Toronto in the "Canada Division?"

Here are my nit-picky problems with this realignment division by division:

Eastern Division: We are going to put the Phillies, Yankees and Red Sox in the same division? I know there has to be long-term thought put into this, so long-term these may not be three of the most dominant teams in baseball, but this seems like an overloaded division. I would imagine Toronto wouldn't be pleased at having four of the highest spending teams in their division. Also, other than the Yankees, why would it make sense to take the Mets away from all of their rivals? I enjoy watching the Phillies and Braves play the Mets.

Central Division: Pittsburgh is not "central" geographically. Not even close.

Midwest Division: Other than the separation of the Cardinals and White Sox from their current rivals, it doesn't seem so bad. This sort of gets to the heart of what geographic alignment is about. It is about essentially fostering local rivalries more than anything else, even at the expense of rivalries that are more regional than necessarily local (i.e. White Sox v. Tigers). I feel like this geographic realignment focuses too much on certain rivalries and just hopes other teams in the division will develop rivalries based on the fact they are located close to each other.

Southeast Division: Other than the fact my Braves team would be losing nearly all of their current rivals to the "American Conference," (Mets, Phillies) I am still concerned about Baltimore and Washington being in the Southeast. If we are going to do this geographically, at least change the name of the divisions to reflect this accurately. I'm sorry, as a Braves fan I don't want to be in a division with the Orioles, Rays, Marlins and Nationals. No fucking thank you. Another interesting part of the way this division is aligned is the subject of attendance at games. This division contains the teams that are 15th, 21st, 25th, 29th, and 30th in home attendance. That doesn't bode well when no team in the division seems to be a draw.

Western Division: This isn't the "California Division," of course. The teams in that division are all in California. These are teams that are solidly in the West, like the Houston Astros and Texas Rangers. This division is essentially put together just so the Rangers and Astros can have rivalry games. Which apparently is all that matters because adding Seattle to this division to play the Diamondbacks, Astros and Rockies doesn't make sense because the Mariners don't have much of a rivalry with these teams since they aren't located in geographic proximity to them nor are they even currently in the same league as these three National League teams.

California Division: See, these teams are all in California. That's why it is called the California Division. Other than the name, I don't have a huge issue with this realignment. Maybe some of these teams wouldn't leave the state of California for an entire month while Seattle will have to travel to Texas to play, but this realignment is all about geography so the amount of travel isn't something Jim Bowden is worried about.

Geographic rivalries would increase attendance, revenue and excitement in the region where each team is located.

It would increase those things in divisions where there are geographic rivalries and between the teams that are rivals. I guarantee you in certain divisions revenue and excitement would be decreased. I am thinking selfishly of the Southeast Division where the Braves are in the same division as three teams that have been in their respective cities for less than two decades. I can't speak for all Braves fans, but I would hate being in this division.

For example, the following series -- Reds-Indians,

I'll give you Reds-Indians, but what about Indians-Pirates, Tigers-Reds, Reds-Twins? Are those big draws?

Orioles-Nationals,

We already have Braves-Nationals/Marlins and those are not well-attended games. How about Orioles-Rays, Braves-Rays? You get my point. Would they be well-attended? I just don't know if well-attended interleague games are a reason to change the divisions around. We could be trading one well-attended series for other series that are question marks.

That's all nitpicking, here is the REAL problem with Bowden's expansion idea. He has an idea on how to do the playoffs as well.

Along with geographic realignment, my proposal would call for expanded playoffs that would increase the number of teams making the postseason from eight to 12.

Would every round, including the World Series, be a one-game playoff? Would the 12 teams that made the playoffs be shuffled around to play each other, not based on each team's record, but geographic area? We could be guaranteed a Yankees-Red Sox playoff nearly every year! Is there anything better than that?

In each conference, the three division winners and the three teams with the next-best records would be postseason-bound.

A playoff system where the three winners of the previous series move on to the next round. What could go wrong? Other than it is impossible, outside of a round robin tournament, for three teams to play and determine which of those teams make the World Series. One team would have to have a bye in the second round of the playoffs. That's not good.

The division winner with the conference's best record, the No. 1 seed, would play the No. 6 seed; the team with the second-best record, the No. 2 seed, would play the No. 5 seed, etc. The first round of the playoffs would be a best-of-five series.

Right now, this doesn't sound terrible. Outside of the whole "how are three teams going to advance to the next round problem," of which I eagerly await a resolution.

Spoiler alert: I won't get a solution. Nothing is given. These are the people ESPN hires to discuss baseball on their web site.

The next rounds would be best-of-seven series.

Revolutionary.

The regular season would begin around March 24, which would shorten spring training. During the first few weeks of the regular season, the games would be played in the National Conference,

I'm sorry, did we ever decide which hotel we were having this National Conference at? What are some of the available programs available at the National Conference?

where the weather is normally dryer and warmer, resulting in fewer rainouts and postponements.

I'm glad Jim Bowden is working hard to resolve the huge issue we have been having with snow postponements and rain-outs. I thought there would never be a person bold enough to investigate this non-issue, but I guess I underestimated Jim Bowden. I've always argued doubleheaders and snow are not ruining baseball, it's good to see someone willing to adjust the entire playing schedule to fix a non-issue like this.

Basketball and hockey have 16 playoff teams, so there is no reason Major League Baseball can’t increase its postseason teams from eight to 12.

Good point other than the basketball and hockey playoffs are fucking interminable and I am ready for them to end in late May, but they don't. Other than the fact I feel this way, this is a great idea. Maybe I have a short attention span, but I don't need the MLB playoffs to be too much longer. It's unavoidable if another layer of the playoffs is added, so I will have to accept this.

This would create more pennant races and more excitement in more cities come September.

I'm not a traditionalist when it comes to baseball. I am also not closed-minded enough to think more pennant races is a bad thing. Still, for some reason I have an issue with creating more playoffs teams, not because there are still qualified teams who get left out, but because it will create excitement in more cities during September. It is like a band writing two slow songs on their album just because it will cause their album to sell better. If the slow songs (teams) are good enough to make the album (playoffs) that's fine, but don't put them on the album (playoffs) unless they are really good enough. Otherwise you are forsaking quality for mass appeal.

It probably is true if the playoffs were expanding there would be more interest in cities during September, but I don't know if this would result in better ratings on television or during the playoffs. I am not sure I like the idea of the inclusion of more teams just to appeal to more people in more cities. The NFL has 12 playoff teams and that seems to work out well for them, so maybe it wouldn't be so bad. I am opposed to a playoff solution that results in playoff games that aren't competitive and any more than 12 teams would probably go that direction in my mind.

Baseball’s present proposal is to increase the playoff teams from eight to 10, by adding a second wild-card team. The problem with that concept is that the division winners would have to sit and wait for the wild-card series to end.

Because first round byes are just stupid? How the hell can Jim Bowden explain his 6 team playoff idea where there are 3 teams that move on to the next round? So a second round bye is perfectly fine, but a first round bye creates a problem?

In baseball, timing is important, and sitting and waiting is a detriment for both hitters and pitchers.

YOU, JIM BOWDEN, HAVE CREATED A PLAYOFF SYSTEM WHERE THERE ARE THREE TEAMS IN EACH CONFERENCE ADVANCING! HOW WILL ONE OF THESE TEAMS NOT GET A BYE?

Is it okay to sit and wait during the second round, but not the first round?

The other problem with the current proposal is that the wild-card series would either be a single game or a best-of-three, lessening the chances of the best team moving on.

Agreed when it comes to a one game playoff, but disagree when it comes to a three game playoff. I that would be a somewhat fair system, especially if the "best team" gets homefield advantage in all three games or something similar to this.

And if it takes the weekend before the end of the regular season to clinch a playoff spot, a team's rotation might not be set up to give it a legitimate chance to win a short series.

Who gives a shit? Baseball is a team game. One of my biggest problems with the MLB playoffs is there is too much time between games. Some teams don't even have to use their 4th starter if they don't want to. I don't care if a team's rotation is "set up" or not. This is a time when a manager actually does some managing in order to decide how he wants his pitching staff used. He has to do this during the regular season due to injuries and other variables like that, why can't he do it during the postseason too?

If the Cardinals use Chris Carpenter to clinch a playoff berth then that was their decision. If it results in Jake Westbrook or Kyle Lohse having to start Game 1 then that is the decision that was made by Tony LaRussa. It is a decision that would need to be made by the manager. I just don't either care or have sympathy for teams that would whine they used their best pitchers to win the division so they need more time to "set" their rotation.

The time has come for baseball to go beyond moving just one team to a new league and to discuss a realignment plan that makes sense geographically

Or somewhat makes sense geographically. Maybe I am the only one who thinks Pittsburgh shouldn't be in the Central division under a "geographically correct" alignment plan. Yes, I realize the Pirates are currently in the Central, but the current divisional alignments don't make sense geographically. It is also impossible to do an entire alignment plan that makes sense geographically and not put Seattle with any of the California teams.

and is in sync with the plan to expand the playoffs.

How about this playoff plan, one that isn't overly complicated:

Move one National League team to the American League. Put the Houston Astros in the AL West. They can compete in a rivalry with the Rangers, so they will have a rival since that appears to be hugely important. The regular season will go on as it currently does or be cut to 154 games, which I wouldn't be opposed to.

Expand the playoffs to 12 teams with a three game playoff between the #3 and #6 teams and #4 and #5 teams in each league. The three game playoff will begin with a one day rest after the regular season and then the series will start with the teams having zero off days and all three games will take place at the higher ranked teams field (it can go 1-1-1, but no off days still).

That way the #1 and #2 seeds can set their rotation (since this is important and they have earned it), which they deserved to be able to do based on their record over the 162 game season, and they don't get a long time off to prevent them from forgetting how to play baseball. This apparently is a problem because teams need rest, but not too much rest to get rust. It seems like it is a delicate balance.

The winner of the three game playoff series goes on to play the #1 and #2 seeds. The #1 seed will play the lower ranked team that advances and the #2 seed will play the higher ranked seed team that advances. This is a five game series.

The next two rounds (ALCS/NLCS and World Series) will be seven game series. Great, sounds good.

I look forward to your thoughts and opinions.

Here's a thought. How are you going to resolve three teams moving on to the next round? Give one of the teams a bye? Didn't Jim Bowden just say teams shouldn't get a first round by because it messes up their timing? Shouldn't this pertain to the second round as well?

Here's an opinion. I don't hate the geographic realignment idea, but I don't think it should be done purely to cultivate the rivalries that already exist. Part of what makes the rivalries exist and makes them exciting is some of these teams don't play 20 games against each other during the year. If the Rangers-Astros played each other 20 times there is no guarantee it would turn into a Red Sox-Yankees type rivalry. I don't dislike the way the divisions are aligned now and I think if a more geographic alignment were done it would tear apart some current rivalries and try to force current interleague rivalries that may end up not existing (Marlins-Rays). I am in favor of realignment, but I don't know if teams need to be moved around in the divisions drastically.

22 comments Messin' With Ross Tucker and a Peter King Follow Up

I am waiting for Gregg Easterbrook to put out his TMQ, but in the meantime I figured, like any good bully, I would pick on Ross Tucker and make fun of his brilliant observations. Hopefully Peter will be done Tweeting and actually have his MMQB-Tuesday out by the time I am done with this and then because it takes me a full day to digest Easterbrook's ramblings I can tackle him at a very soon to be later date.

Ross Tucker doesn't give every team a grade, that's pointless he says, so he picks arbitrary categories like "Loved It" or "Didn't Love It Or Hate It" as a much more accurate form of displaying what he thought about each team's draft.

Giving a draft grade for each team the day after the draft is a fruitless exercise. It takes a minimum of three years before a draft can be revisited and evaluated to determine how productive a team was with its selections.

Giving an arbitrary letter grade is much stupider than giving an arbitrary phrase indicating how you liked a team's draft. In three years the Falcons draft may not be an A-, but Ross Tucker's grade of "Love It," still holds up..according to him. One reason Ross Tucker gets his articles bookmarked by me is that he shrugs off one subjective arbitrary category using letter grades to grade how teams did in the NFL draft to use a completely different subjective arbitrary category to grade how NFL teams did in the NFL draft.

Loved It

This is category one. I don't mean to assume but when Tucker says he "loved it," I am assuming that means an "A" was received.

Baltimore Ravens: The Wizard of Oz, GM Ozzie Newsome, does it again by entering the draft with no glaring needs and getting tremendous value at every selection.

No glaring needs other than another good WR, an improved OL, younger CB, and backups at LB and DE. Other than that, yes nothing sticks out.

Cincinnati Bengals: Marvin Lewis is tired of trying to play finesse football in the black and blue division. Instead of running from the bullies in the schoolyard in Baltimore and Pittsburgh, the Bengals are going to hit them in the mouth with Alabama tackle Andre Smith and USC linebacker Rey Maualuga.

Then Smith will attempt to digest the fallen player whole while Maualuga dances behind him...but later apologizes.

Instead of running from bullies they chose a group of players with character/motivation issues. That's a route they have never been down before.

Philadelphia Eagles: They got arguably the best receiver in the draft, Jeremy Maclin, at No. 19

This is only arguable because it is clearly not true. Michael Crabtree is a better receiver and Percy Harvin would have been picked before Maclin if he had not smoked pot before the Combine.

Oh, and did I mention they got the most talented left tackle in the league in Jason Peters via trade

Yesterday we had the TRADE OF THE YEAR and today we have Jason "11.5 sacks allowed last year" Peters as the most talented left tackle in the league. I am starting to wonder if the columnists at CNNSI.com are starting to lose their minds.

Hated It

This is arbitrary category #2.

Tampa Bay Buccaneers:

The Bucs still need a defensive tackle, though I am sure they hope Roy Miller from Texas can fill that role.

Considering he is listed as a DT, I would certainly guess the Bucs are not planning on trying him out at wide receiver, and are, in fact, hoping he can play the defensive tackle position.

Didn't Love It Or Hate It

This is arbitrary category #3.

You're Gonna Do What?

Arbitrary category #4. Oh shit, now Ross Tucker is not even using categorical phrases, but using phrases in the form of questions to describe how teams did. I thought for sure the Bengals would get their own category of "Why Did You Drive Drunk and Then Get In A Fight?" but they didn't.

Oakland Raiders:

First-round pick Darrius Heyward-Bey is fast but has trouble catching the ball at times, which is kind of a problem when you are trying to make your living as an NFL receiver.

If Bill Simmons wrote her, he would say, "Ladies and gentlemen, your 2009 Oakland Raiders." I am not kidding, I thought about the format of http://www.euthanizealdavis.com/ earlier this morning and already have the background picked out for the site. I am not sure if everyday I would post something else about Al Davis that should piss the Raiders fan base off or what, but after reading the Raider's message board yesterday, they need an intervention ASAP. I feel like I would doing a public service by starting this site for the Raiders fans everywhere.

New York Jets: Everyone else loves what the Jets did. Not me. It is hard for me to imagine USC quarterback Mark Sanchez being better as a rookie than fourth-year vet Kellen Clemens.

Exactly.

The pressure on Sanchez will be huge for a team whose roster is ready to win now. Drafting only three players means the team is looking to get into the postseason.

Ex-freaking-actly. Though I mock Ross Tucker for stating the obvious a lot, I am glad he stated the obvious here. I think it needed to be said...at least in my opinion.

Need More Information

Arbitrary category #5. Really every single draft pick made could go under this heading and every single grade could be "Need More Information" since none of the players have ever played a single down in the NFL. I digress though...

Jacksonville Jaguars: Jack Del Rio was tired of drafting guys who didn't pan out.

As opposed to Dan Snyder and Al Davis who just can't seem to get enough of it.

New York Giants

You can't tell me Nicks and Barden will be better than Anquan Boldin or Braylon Edwards the next two years. By the time the rookies develop, the window on the Giants' title hopes might be closed.

I obviously can't predict the future (if you don't believe me, just look at my New Orleans-Denver series prediction), but I don't think the Giants window is going to close in two years. Except on the offensive line, which is not that old, the Giants have a pretty young team at the skill positions of QB, RB, WR, DE, and CB. I think both players would have made sense for the Giants, but I would actually argue they helped their future out by not trading for one of two guys who are (a) older than the guys they drafted and (b) have certain questions about their durability (Boldin) and ability to catch the football and not drop it (Edwards). Both players would probably also want new contracts in the new future, Boldin especially, which would not be good for the Giants salary cap situation.

I am not arguing the Giants are better without those two players, because they are not, but I don't think they have mortgaged the future by drafting younger, less proven players. I think Nicks could turn into a great receiver. He put up great numbers at UNC with three different (and not quality) quarterbacks throwing the ball to him.

Detroit Lions: This draft will always hinge on whether Matthew Stafford earns the exorbitant money he is receiving.

You mean the Lions draft success will depend on whether the guy they paid nearly $42 million dollars guaranteed and are relying upon to lead the team for the next decade becomes a good player or not? Surely, Ross you must jest. Thanks for the insight.

To his credit, he has handled the process fantastically up to this point. Now he just needs to play well.

So far he has interviewed well and managed to walk up to the podium, fake smile, and hold up a Detroit Lions jersey. Granted, Eli Manning was not able to do this in when he was drafted by the Chargers, but I think we should hold off on giving Stafford credit until he actually does play well.

Oklahoma State tight end Brandon Pettigrew and Western Michigan safety Louis Delmas are the most physical players at their position and fit what Jim Schwartz is trying to do in the Motor City.

Which is win one game this year.

Steady As She Goes

Arbitrary ranking #6 is the pirate phrase ranking apparently. Though he did forget the word "mate," but I will forgive him.

Indianapolis Colts:

BYU wide receiver Austin Collie has Colt written all over him

I want to make fun of this but I said the same thing about Larry English and the Patriots in my mock draft. The guy's last name is Collie and Tucker says he has "Colt" written all over him. It would have been an animal joke if I had made one, but I won't.

Tennessee Titans:

The Titans got another young body on the defensive line in Sen'Derrick Marks, who they will need to get to play hard on every snap.

The rest of the guys on the Titans defense will only need to play hard 73% of the snaps. Actually, this is better than having Albert Haynesworth, who only played hard when he was going to be a free agent.

Shrug Of The Shoulders

Arbitrary ranking #7. Rather than the 5 letters of the alphabet that are usually used to grade a team's draft, Ross Tucker has created 7 different phrases, which should help his grades hold up in the long run much better. Screw you Mel Kiper Jr.!

San Francisco 49ers:

Ball State quarterback Nate Davis gives San Francisco a physically gifted quarterback who has some obstacles to overcome to become an NFL caliber passer.

Is this a vague reference to the fact he has a learning disability? Specifically dyslexia? No offense but even with a learning disability he is probably more intelligent than 50% of the players currently in the NFL. I say this even though Davis got an 11 on the Wonderlic.

Peter did manage to get his MMQB-Tuesday out in time.

Sadly, Ivn did not make the mailbag this week...and neither did I. We will get over our disappointment and rebound next week.

"I don't care if I screwed up in picking the tackle number two,'' Devaney told me. "I was tired of seeing our quarterback get killed. I don't care if we give up 50 points a game, I'm not going to sit around and watch our quarterback get abused the way he did last year and the way he would have if we didn't address the offense line.

I just think the Bills and the Lions should take note of this quote. I am not going to mention this again. I'm done.

Must be a terrible thing for Carr, by the way. He gets picked number one in the draft, and what he's remember for most is getting sacked -- 208 times in his first four seasons. He never led the league in anything in those four season, other than being sacked. Three times in those four years he led the NFL in times sacked.

I got the anti-privilege of watching David Carr play two years ago and though he was sacked a lot early in his career, if there was a defensive lineman who got anywhere near him, he would shut it down and not even try to complete a pass but just prepare for the sack. He was actually ducking before the defensive lineman could get to him in the Tennessee game two years ago for Carolina. David Carr is also kind of a wimp and I will never defend him in any setting.

Did you wonder, like I did, why the Bucs, set on taking Kansas State quarterback Josh Freeman with their first-round pick, paid the Browns a sixth-rounder for the privilege of moving up two spots in the round.

Blame the Mel-Kiperization of the draft world.

"A lot of mock drafts had Denver taking Josh Freeman,'' Tampa Bay GM Mark Dominik said the other night. "I thought paying a sixth-rounder was a small price to pay for insurance to make sure we got our guy.''

Tampa Bay fans have to be absolutely thrilled that their GM pays attention to mock drafts by the media who can't even get 50% of their picks right for his information rather than networking through the league or maybe just using any other method available to the GM of an NFL team. I can't think of a more stupid reason to move up in the draft than to look at mock drafts and base your team decisions on that. Next thing we know this guy will be making decisions based on the Truth and Rumors section at SI.com. I am going to go ahead and say this does not bode well for the Bucs.

From Chad Short of Dallas: "Britney Spears' father, Jamie Spears, was able to get control of Britney due to her self-destruction. Are there any grounds for the NFL to do the same thing with the Oakland Raiders? At some point someone needs to step in and say enough's enough.''

Well, I think a lot of Raider fans share your pessimism.

Here's the thing, they don't share the pessimism. Again, I don't like taking cheap shots but that article is like a big, wonderful cheerleading homeristic dream. Sorry, I think it is true. If Heyward-Bey and Mitchell turn out to be worthy of the spots they were drafted, I will be shocked.

From Alex Martin of New Orleans: "You write, 'I've never seen so many teams so in love with a corner who runs 4.53 as is the case with Malcolm Jenkins.' Interesting way to look at it. Especially when you consider Nnamdi Asomugha ran a 4.5 40 coming out of college, too. How did he work out?''

In your face Peter King. His readers really are smarter than he is...and yes, I realize Asomugha was a smart Raiders draft choice, but then they gave him that absurdly stupid contract...so they get no credit from me.

Peter, what say you?

Very well. He's the highest-paid cornerback ever. But I'd bet you a grande latte that there was more interest higher in the draft for Jenkins, who was drafted 14th overall, than there was in 2003 for Asomugha, who was drafted 31st.

So Peter is saying, Jenkins drew more interest running a 4.53 40 coming out of college than Asomugha did and that proves his original statement that Jenkins had the most interest of any corner who ran a 4.5 40? Possibly his statement could only be true because Asomugha proved you don't have to be exceptionally fast to be a great corner in the league. Except Peter wasn't comparing the two players, he was questioning whether that was fast enough to run the 40 for an NFL cornerback. Peter made that statement and I think it inherently contained some questions as to why all the teams were interested in Jenkins if he ran that slow of a 40, like Peter did not understand why the teams liked him. I think he forgot Asomugha ran a "slower" 40 but Asomugha ran a 4.50 40 and turned out to be a great player so he feels stupid for forgetting...so Peter plays semantics rather than admit he forgot.

Peter could easily say, "Yes there was a lot of interest in Jenkins because of the success of Asomugha," and admit he forgot Asomugha ran that "slow," but instead he takes all of the questioning out of his own statement and tries to act like it was just a simple statement that Jenkins had the most interest ever for a guy who ran a "slow" 40. (As if there should be a chart that gauges the "interest level" for cornerbacks who ran a "slow" 40 and Jenkins would have the most interest) Really Peter was doubting whether Jenkins could be successful running that time in the 40 and a reader called him on it, and Peter being petrified of the fact he completely forgot what Asomugha ran in the 40 and was successful in the NFL, just tries to make his original statement just a simple statement that Jenkins received more interest than any other cornerback who ran a 4.5 40.

I'm tired now. I think Ivn and my questions were much better and challenging than the one's Peter got. We'll try again sometime.

It's on to trying to read TMQ so I can decipher it for everyone tomorrow.

15 comments Understanding Football For Idiots: Featuring Gregg Easterbrook

TMQ is like a drug. I could never fully understand it at first, but once I gained a better understanding of what the hell was being said, I realized Gregg Easterbrook has no clue about football strategy and I could not stay away. This makes me want to make fun of him, so I do. Gregg has a different angle on the Super Bowl.

You will hear a million times before kickoff of Super Bowl XLIII -- just XII days away, at VI:XX Eastern on Feb. 1 -- that the game will be a battle of Arizona's offense versus Pittsburgh's defense.

I believe that is the premise of the Super Bowl, there is a coin flip, one team chooses either offense/defense and then the other team chooses the side of the field and has to take either offense/defense, and then they do this for 60 minutes with only one defense and offense squaring off.

Of course the game is expected to be a battle between the teams two dominant units, that seems to make sense, but I am sure no one is overlooking Arizona's defense and Pittsburgh's offense.

Tuesday Morning Quarterback suspects the game will be a battle of Pittsburgh's offense versus Arizona's defense.

Bold prediction my friend. I am not sure anyone in the world thinks Pittsburgh's offense or Arizona's defense will have anything to do with this game. TMQ colors outside the lines regularly with exemplary sentences like this.

the great offense and great defense roughly neutralized each other, leaving the trophy to be decided by the lesser offense against the lesser defense. Last year, New England's record-setting offense faced Jersey/A's lockdown defense, and the Patriots led when their offense left the field with four minutes remaining --

Because New England had a high scoring offense and the Giants did not let New England score many points, I think it would be fair to say the Giants defense was not "neutralized" but actually won the matchup. This is bad analysis. If the Patriots had scored 45 points, then the Giants defense would have lost the matchup, but because the Patriots did not score that many points, the defense won the game. They did not neutralize each other. The Giants won that matchup. I Hate repeating myself but really feel the need to.

but the so-so New England defense could not prevent the so-so Giants offense from scoring in the final minute.

This was not a trend but one drive in the game...a very crucial drive but just one drive nonetheless. I would say the New England defense did a decent job against the Giants offense overall.

More often than not when a great offense meets a great defense, neither decides the contest.

I see. So we are not counting any of the Super Bowls the Cowboys, Giants, and Redskins played against the high powered Bill offense (they got shut down), the 49ers-Chargers Super Bowl where the high powered San Fran offense ran all over the Chargers, the Titans-Rams Super Bowl where the Titans defense held the Rams in check for most of the game, nor the Buccaneers-Raiders game where it was over after the 1st quarter because the Raiders offense could not score on the Bucs defense?

If a high powered team is held to lower than their normal points per game, then the defense hasd won, it's actually pretty simple, yet so complicated for Gregg to understand.

Neither the Arizona defense nor the Pittsburgh offense inspire confidence. Whichever one bests the other may determine who drinks champagne in Tampa while confetti falls.

So if it is a 20-17 game, then Gregg will think the Pittsburgh defense/Arizona offense neutralized each other and the Pittsburgh offense/Arizona defense decided the game. Not to be confused with the idea if it is 45-38, the Arizona offense won the game, despite the fact Pittsburgh put up 38 points. Gregg's thoughts hurts my head.

More corners and safeties have rushed in this postseason than in any chunk of games in NFL annals,

Need proof of this? Screw your proof of this, it's in Gregg's head, along with the 1001 reasons to always go for it on fourth down.

I wish I could write for a major sports web site and just write random shit that has no proof. It would make my job so much easier.

Among TMQ's off-price generic Super Bowl predictions is that the game will be won by the team that has the gumption not to do what it is expected to do -- Indianapolis' featuring the run rather than the pass against the Bears, for example.

Considering Peyton Manning was suffering through a bad postseason and the Bears were making sure to shut down Wayne and Harrison, this tactic was not completely unforseen.

TMQ forecasts: If either the Cardinals or Steelers do not use lots of cornerback and safety blitzes, that team will emerge victorious.

Reading the weekly TMQ is like reading a message board, where you wonder where some of these morons wandered in from, except in this case we know Gregg wandered in from ESPN.com.

The playoffs so far have been all about radical defensive schemes; that means a conventional defensive scheme would come as a surprise.

Need proof of this. Screw you and your proof says TMQ/Gregg. No proof for you. Numbers that support statements are silly.

Now it's fourth-and-1 on the 34 and Baltimore decides to go for the first down -- a reasonable decision, though note Baltimore won the coin toss and chose the wind, so a field-goal attempt would have been with the wind. The unbalanced line and extra lineman remained on the field; a slotback went in motion right as a diversion; Joe Flacco tried the quarterback sneak; Pittsburgh nose tackle Casey Hampton hit him low and safety Troy Polamalu leapt high -- Steelers' ball.

But hey, at least the Ravens players knew that Jim Harbaugh was serious about winning the game!

Three snaps later, Pittsburgh led 13-0.

Sure, the Ravens are losing by 13 on the road to one of the NFL's toughest defenses, but now the Ravens have shown they are interested in winning the game by going for it on fourth down. That is the important part.

This was named the "Sweet Play" by Easterbrook, yet no mention that going for it on fourth down did not work for the Ravens and completely turned the momentum of the game to the Steelers. Nope, that would be proving him wrong that going for it on fourth down is always a great idea.

My 2008 middle school team had a trick play called Varsity Special, so named because all the boys hope to make varsity. On the play a running back takes a counter pitch right; the quarterback stands watching as if out of the play; the left receiver stops and watches as if out of the play; the running back laterals to the quarterback, throwing the ball backward so it is not a forward pass; the left receiver blows down the field, the target of the play all along. With the hosts leading 7-3, the Arizona (Contains Powerful Football Substance) Cardinals had first-and-10 on their 38. Tailback J.J. Arrington took a counter pitch right, then stopped and looked back toward Kurt Warner. As Arrington looked back toward the quarterback I said to Spenser, my 13-year-old, "It's Varsity Special!" So it was, 62 yards for the touchdown to Larry Fitzgerald. The Miami Dolphins this season were raiding high school playbooks; the Super Bowl-bound Cardinals raided the middle school playbook!

A lot of information is contained here. First, it sounds as if Gregg is in middle school because he says "his" middle school, second his son's name is Spenser with an "s" which I find to be very Easterbrook-esque, and third the Cardinals did not raid the middle school playbook because I have seen them run that play before, and fourth, your coyness is stupid. Seriously, who hired this guy at ESPN? What the hell did he do to get the gig? He is like a less informed version of Woody Paige.

In the comments, a few days ago Martin suggested Peter King, Gregg Easterbrook, and Bill Simmons had a death pact to see which one could cause seizure or death upon reading their column. I agree and it is working.

TMQ loves the tactic, in a pressure situation, of calling a play for a guy who never plays; two points, and a 32-25 Arizona lead.

Absolutely, I love this tactic as well. Get a guy who has lesser skills than anyone else currently playing on the field and have the game depend on his ability to make a play. I am sure that was exactly the Cardinals plan. The Cardinals probably searched for hours trying to find the right play to feature Ben Patrick with the game on the line and were not calling a play that was designed to offset Philly's defensive tendencies and formations on the goal line. No, that would make too much sense.

Not only did pulling within three points make a lot more sense than pulling within four, at that juncture the Cardinals were reeling and a deuce conversion would have added to the sense that the home team was falling apart. Instead Andy Reid sent out the kicker and the football gods, peeved, pushed the PAT try aside.

I am sure it was the imaginary football gods that pushed the kick aside and not David Akers who had already kicked the ball out of bounds on a kick off in the game, missed a field goal and was shaky all game. Also, if the Eagles had gotten a two point conversion this would have made ZERO difference in the game. I think the fact the Eagles had come back from 24-6 in the game and would go ahead on he next drive sufficiently gave the sense that the home team was falling apart.

For some reason Gregg thinks like Bill Simmons, that crowd momentum and mysterious fake events and happenings actually make a different in a football game. Is there a class they teach on this at ESPN?

But these were the sole snaps on which Ngata played offense; on other short-yardage Baltimore plays that failed, Ngata was not on the field. Not using Ngata more on short yardage was sour.

Since Gregg knows almost nothing about football, I will help him with this. First, you don't want the starting nose tackle in a 3-4 defense to get hurt blocking on offense so you use him sparingly and second, there are specific people on the roster called offensive lineman that can block pretty well and actually know the blocking schemes that are being used, which are schemes I am going to go ahead and say Ngata has not fully studied. It's more complicated than just throwing him out there and seeing what happens.

Arizona, the 32nd-ranked rushing team during the regular season, rushed nine times on the drive. Included was a signature sequence in which the Cards faced second-and-1 and rushed, then faced third-and-2 and rushed, then faced fourth-and-1 and rushed -- first down. The Cards picked a good time to go traditionalist.

It took them three tries to get 1 yard and Gregg is praising them for this. A good columnist who is attempting to analyze as Gregg is here would say that this was great they got the first down but this really poses a problem if they can't get one yard.

During the Philadelphia comeback, the Eagles put their regular defense out, and Arizona had trouble moving against it. With 10 minutes remaining and Arizona trailing, Philadelphia expected the Cards to go pass-wacky, and sent its dime onto the field. Against a dime, power rushes work, so Haley sent out his jumbo offense and started rushing.

It was that easy, and remember, once a team has players on the field, they can't take them off the field! At least that must be what Gregg thinks.

I like how Gregg takes complicated decisions and strategies and manages to try and simplify them when they are actually more complicated.

Double safety blitzing is as likely to backfire as to produce a turnover -- I'd leave that one out of the defensive playbook for Tampa.

Here's a good example of that. Sure, leave the double safety blitz out of the playbook for the Super Bowl, but Gregg needs to realize a double safety blitz also works when a team runs the ball, so this could be a good way to run blitz and stop the Steelers from running the ball. See, takes a simple idea that starts out as right and it no longer makes sense because a double safety blitz can also be a good tactic to stop the run, which I am assuming the Cardinals are interested in doing.

And what was the deal with Andy Reid angrily berating David Akers after he honked a kickoff out of bounds? Akers had a bad day, missing a field goal attempt and a PAT in addition to the botched kickoff. Yet just a week before, as the Eagles upset the defending champion Giants, Akers played one of the best games a placekicker has ever played -- three field goals in stiff wind and a touchdown-saving tackle.

Andy Reid berated Akers because he cost the team four points and 15 yards of field position against a high scoring offense. If he had hit the field goal and extra point, the Eagles would have only needed a field goal to tie the game up. You thought the Eagles should have gone for two earlier but now have no problem with the player who left 4 points on the board. Also, it doesn't matter if Akers had a great week last week, none of those points count for this week.

Berating any player on the sidelines during a game is poor coaching (rebukes should come in private), let alone berating a player who's normally a top performer. That Reid lost his temper when the team needed him to stay focused possibly suggests he has trouble handling pressure.

Sure, Reid should just wait the rest of the game to tell Akers he expects more from him than what he is getting, because it will make a difference after the game and all.

Also, Todd Haley lost his temper with Anquan Boldin, does that mean he has trouble handling pressure? That doesn't bode well for the Super Bowl chances of Arizona.

Because the zone-blitz approach means everyone on the front seven must be able to rush the passer, stop the run and cover the slant lanes, when you play the Steelers, essentially you are playing a defense that starts seven defensive ends. The Giants did that last year before Michael Strahan retired and Osi Umenyiora got hurt, and it was a Super Bowl-winning formula.

I don't recall the Giants running a 3-4 defense, starting seven defensive ends, or running a zone blitz scheme. What I do remember is the Giants blitzing effectively, which does not really count as the same thing that Pittsburgh does. The Giants ran a 3-4 and blitzed up the middle at Tom Brady, at least that is how I remember it, but I could be wrong. Of course I also remember a lot of talk that the Giants had a great front four and that was the reason they won the Super Bowl. Either way, this worked but is not the same as the 3-4 defense. Again, shitty analysis.

Julius Peppers is throwing at fit at Carolina right now because he wants to play for a defense designed to produce personal stats for Julius Peppers.

His agent released a statement to ESPN. Julius Peppers has not said anything, this is also known as "not throwing a fit."

Nobody on the Steelers' defensive front has particularly fantastic personal stats. That's part of the point.

Yeah, nobody except for the Defensive Player of the Year, James Harrison. Other than him, nobody else has put up great numbers, unless you want to count LaMar Woodley who had 12 sacks or Troy Polamalu who had 7 interceptions this year. Should we count them?

Even though this sometimes worked -- a 65-yard touchdown pass to Santonio Holmes off a zany scramble -- you can't count on scrambling as your game plan.

Somewhere in a prison cafeteria Mike Vick starts crying learning this news.

That cannot be the Pittsburgh Steelers in a shotgun spread on third-and-1 when trying to grind the clock! Incompletion, clock stopped, bad punt, Baltimore scored and suddenly the pressure is on at 16-14. The pass was not a gamble for a deep completion, rather a dinky-dunky 5-yard thing. No matter how good your defense is, you can't casually throw incompletions on third-and-1 in a clock-killing situation.

The pass would have been fine with Gregg if it had been in a pressure situation and was to a 3rd string tight end who rarely played.

Pizza Hut's new taste-test commercial for whole-wheat-crust pizza (quite good) prominently proclaims the customers depicted are "real people, not actors." Actors aren't people?

Gosh, you can't get anything past Gregg at all can you? I think what they mean is that they are not acting like real people, they are actually real people.

Since it's rare for a bodyguard to do more than open doors and shoo away autograph-seekers, unarmed guards are just as good as armed.

Unfortunately in non rare situations, you will be killed without an armed bodyguard.

About the upcoming book: On receiving the manuscript my literary agent called to say, "Hey, this could sell!" He's been my agent since 1983 and has, ahem, never said that before. The book is called "Sonic Boom" and has nothing to do with football, or flight for that matter. More soon.

His agent must have been happy he gets 5% commission on this book that could sell, because the commission on Gregg's last book, "What is Football?" only made him $32.54.

Now check this Boston Globe story on the hunt for Jagodzinski's replacement. DeFilippo is interested in coaches who currently have posts, but won't come to Boston College to interview. That is -- he wants them to do to their schools exactly what he just fired his own coach for doing!

Oh the horror of the hypocrisy of this! You would think Boston College would be looking for unemployed coaches who have plenty of time on their hands, because in college football there are so many quality coaches not currently coaching a team.

There is a difference in leaving BC for the NFL and for another college, which is what BC's next coach will be doing.

Hidden plays are ones that never make highlight reels, but stop or sustain drives. With Pittsburgh leading 16-14, the Ravens had second-and-8 with 5:13 remaining. The Steelers go with a five-man zone rush, and linebacker LaMarr Woodley gets a sack causing a third-and-13. Facing third-and-13 and clearly now worried, Joe Flacco heave-hoed a poor pass that was intercepted and returned for the game-icing touchdown. The sack that made it third-and-13 was a classic hidden play.

No one paid attention to the play that forced the Ravens from a potential first down or third and short to a 3rd and 13 play in the fourth quarter of the AFC Championship Game. I bet even LaMar Woodley forgot that he did this! How does Gregg notice things no one else notices?

We promise nothing, the rules are kept secret even from the judges, and the final decision will be completely arbitrary.

Much like the rules of football are kept secret from Gregg, and arbitrarily, which is how the Hall of Fame voters fill out their ballot.