Gregg Easterbrook quickly jumped off the 49ers bandwagon last week in TMQ. I'm assuming he has jumped right back on the bandwagon this week after the 49ers dismantled the Rams on Thursday Night Football. You may wonder how the 49ers saved their season in Gregg's opinion? They went for it on fourth down of course. Going for it on fourth down, and not playing the Rams, in Gregg's opinion gave the 49ers the confidence necessary to win the game. I was also reminded in the comments that Gregg wondered if the read option was a fad in last week's TMQ, but it was just back in late August when Gregg wondered if the Packers should pull Aaron Rodgers from the game so Vince Young could throw a different look at opposing defenses. I am guessing Gregg wants us to forget he wrote that. This week Gregg writes about the undefeated teams in the NFL, criticizes "Breaking Bad" (which seems to be a popular thing to do) for (what else?) not being realistic enough, and takes the time to prove writing "Game over" in a notebook indeed does not mean the game is over. Gregg telling us he writes "Game over," as if this is proof a team should have gone for it on fourth down and they lost the game due to not going for it on fourth down, is pointless because it proves nothing. Gregg realizes this, yet still won't stop writing "Game over" as if this comment isn't pointless.
It's down to the Final Five -- five undefeated NFL teams remaining: Denver, Kansas City, New England, Seattle and New Orleans.
I'm still very excited for the 9-0 Bowl between Denver and Kansas City, then again I'm also very, very excited for the 10-0 Bowl between Denver and New England. If I were Peter King I would include a sentence that says it is too early to say for sure this 9-0 Bowl will happen, but then continue to talk about this game like it is sure to occur.
Here is a rundown of the NFL's remaining undefeated clubs:
It's a rundown and you should expect no type of analysis during this rundown. Straight bullshit, no chaser.
Kansas City: Already twice as many victories as it posted in 2012. The Chiefs had a run of bad luck in 2012 games.
I'm very confused how the Chiefs had a run of bad luck in 2012 games. It seems like they lost quite a few games decisively and they didn't lead in regulation for the first eight games of the season without leading during regulation. If an NFL team doesn't have the lead in regulation for eight straight games that's not just bad luck holding them back from winning games. Other than the murder/suicide of Jovan Belcher (which had nothing to do with the games) I'm not sure how the Chiefs had a run of bad luck. Score one for Gregg making shit up.
The Alex Smith trade is looking like a masterstroke. A disciplined West
Coast quarterback is what Andy Reid always wanted. Now he's got one.
I guess Andy Reid always wanted a disciplined West Coast quarterback and never has had one. Donovan McNabb is sad upon hearing this.
Seattle: TMQ's Law of Comebacks holds: Defense starts comebacks, offense stops them.
This is a good example of Gregg stating something that is shockingly obvious, but he wants us to believe it isn't so obvious. Defense has to start a comeback since a team can't actually come back until they have stopped the other team from scoring. It's hard to start a comeback if the defense can't stop the opposing team from scoring.
As usual, the New England defense allowed a bucket of yards but
stiffened when necessary. Score 30-23, the Falcons reached first down on
the New England 13 in the final minute and went incompletion,
incompletion, short pass, incompletion. Needless to say, it did not
occur to Atlanta coaches to surprise the Patriots' dime defense with a
rushing play.
Maybe the Falcons should have tried a running play, but when they have Julio Jones, Roddy White, and Tony Gonzalez available in the passing game then it is pretty tempting to use these players rather than count on Jacquizz Rodgers to surprise the Patriots defense.
No NFL team can match New Orleans for fun-to-watch quotient. The Saints
may be 6-2 or even 7-1 at the midway point, then face a killer three
weeks of San Francisco, Atlanta and Seattle in succession.
The good news for the Saints is they can easily beat the Falcons because Atlanta doesn't run the ball enough and the 49ers can't score because the read-option is just a fad.
The Broncos' defense is pedestrian, though it might improve, assuming
Von Miller returns. The main cautionary note for Denver faithful is that
the formula the Broncs are using -- fantastic pass-wacky offense,
middling defense -- is the formula the Patriots have used for the last
five years, and the Patriots have petered out in the playoffs.
Yes, be warned Broncos fans! Your favorite team may only make two Super Bowls over the next five years. I hope you can handle this type of mediocrity that being like the New England Patriots represents.
In TMQ news, last week I did a live Twitter test of my "game over"
notations, and came out smelling like a rose. I promised to repeat the
test this week, and came out -- ahem, see below.
The test failed and the Bills came back to beat the Ravens. The problem with Gregg's sudden self-awareness about writing "Game over" in his notebook is that he still tries to pass writing "Game over" as something that has value when it really doesn't. It means nothing. Sometimes when Gregg writes "Game over" it's true, other times it is not.
Sour Play of the Week: Trailing 30-13 in the third quarter at
Detroit, Chicago coach Marc Trestman sent in the kicking unit on
fourth-and-5 from the Lions' 7. It was the kind of play that makes a guy
want to write "game over."
I think it was safe to write "Game over" in this situation even if the Bears went for it on fourth down.
Facing fourth-and-1 on their own 29, the Raiders had their kicking unit
trot in -- but it formed a Wildcat offense and ran for the first down as
Rdskns coaches failed to signal timeout.
It's still obvious you are writing "Redskins" you dumb sht.
Later, Oakland, which entered with the league's fourth-ranked running offense, punted on fourth-and-2 in Washington territory.
I'm pretty sure the Raiders first and second string running backs had been injured at this point in the game, so I'm guessing that probably impacted the decision to go for it in this situation and not attempt to run the football with the third string running back...and rightfully so.
Who is the stupidest law enforcement officer in television crime? The
detectives on "The Bridge" are candidates: see more below. Sheriff
Esquivel in "Under the Dome" is a contender. She arrives just after two
people are shot to death and finds two men standing at the scene, each
with a gun. One committed the murders, the other tried to stop him.
Sheriff Esquivel puts the good guy in jail while letting the evil guy
walk, setting in motion the season-finale cliffhanger. It never occurs
to her to examine the guns the men are holding (one would have a warm
barrel) or check their hands (one would have powder residue).
Usually the police have to do a test for gunpowder residue and it isn't usually visible simply from looking at person's hands. So perhaps Sheriff Esquivel should have had both people stand there for a few hours (or more) until the residue test came back, but she certainly could not have looked at each person's hands at the scene of the crime and determined which person fired the gun.
It never occurs to her to take both men into custody, then do a ballistics investigation.
It never occurred to Gregg you can't hold a person for an indefinite length of time without formally accusing that person of a crime. Ballistics investigations can take more time than just 24 hours.
One of the guilty pleasures of "Breaking Bad" is that it depicted Walter
White as an amoral but very intelligent man operating in a world of
idiots. Hank is the worst idiot of all.
Oh, do tell how Hank is at fault for not thinking his brother-in-law was a meth kingpin.
Walt is directly under Hank's nose for the show's run, yet Hank takes
till almost the end to notice. When Hank finally puts it together, he
doesn't simply arrest Walt -- by that point he has probable cause --
The show very clearly spelled out why Hank did not arrest Walt. He had no probable cause. He saw the initials "W.W." inscribed in "Leaves of Grass" referring to Walt while using Walt's toilet and this reminded him of a prior conversation he had with Walt where Hank was wondering who another meth cook (who was working with Walt) could have been referring to when he wrote "W.W." in a notebook found at the scene of a crime. Probable cause isn't "This guy has a book where someone wrote the initials 'W.W.' in it and the initials 'W.W.' were in another book that was found at the scene of a crime." Even after the conversation where Walt threatens Hank, there is no probable cause because Walt could simply deny the conversation ever happened since it wasn't recorded. So Hank didn't have probable cause.
or go to a judge for a search warrant.
It's abundantly clear that Gregg Easterbrook did not watch "Breaking Bad." Where would Hank have searched with this warrant? Walt's house? There was no evidence of any type in Walt's house, and in fact, Walt had not been cooking meth for a few months and was completely out of the business. Hank would have to have known where to find Walt's money to get a search warrant for the storage garage where the money was kept and Hank didn't know where the storage garage was located. A search warrant would have done no good, because even if Walt's home was searched nothing would be found.
But even after Walt comes to Hank's garage, admits his "criminal
enterprise" and threatens Hank -- threatening a federal agent is cause
for arrest -- Hank does not act.
Walt never came right out and threatened Hank in the garage (other than saying "tread lightly" and being vague about being a meth kingpin), and even if he did, it is one man's word against another. The fact Hank clearly had beaten Walt up a little bit in the garage probably wouldn't have looked so good for Hank either. Hank was trying to build a case against Walt, and as Steven Michael Quezada said on "Talking Bad," when researching his role as Gomez (Hank's partner) he found that it takes months for the DEA to build a case and then act on it. So Hank knew this and wanted to put Walt away for sure as opposed to building a half-assed case based on heresay evidence.
Though they are going after a stone killer involved in perhaps 20 murders, they don't bring along backup. They do bring along Jesse Pinkman, himself a suspect. That makes for two lawmen handling two very dangerous suspects,
Pinkman had just recorded a video for Hank and Gomez outlining his and Walt's crimes. It was fair to say that he wasn't a dangerous suspect at this point in the story, considering any type of immunity from his crimes was dependent on cooperating with the DEA. Besides, Jesse thought Walt was trying to kill him (which he was), so he would not switched to Walt's side. Before Gregg criticizes television shows he should try to watch these television shows so he knows what he is criticizing.
Arresting Walt in mid-desert, Hank observes pickup trucks full of men
approaching their isolated off-road location. Seeing those trucks, Hank doesn't call for backup.
That area was an hour away from most of civilization so there was almost no chance of backup reaching them in time. Plus, once Hank called backup how was he going to direct them to the location? GPS coordinates would be the best way probably, but backup still would have struggled to get there in time.
Since Walt alone knew the desert location, the approaching vehicles must
contain someone Walt contacted. Hank mumbles, "Maybe that's the tribal
police." If that was the tribal police, they would have been in uniform.
Gregg second-guesses so much he actually doesn't even make sense at times. So how is Hank supposed to know the tribal police are not in uniform while the trucks are being driven? He's in the middle of a sunny desert and he is supposed to be able to see inside the truck and immediately know for sure the driver and occupants aren't wearing uniforms?
When thugs hired by Walt get out and show rifles, Hank and Gomez don't take cover; they stand in the clear, exposed.
Because at this point if they started running to take cover they would have been shot because they were showing the crazy Nazi guys they were a threat. Geez, use your head.
Even when the shooting starts, they never call for backup.
BECAUSE THEY WERE BEING SHOT AT BY NAZIS WITH AUTOMATIC WEAPONS! DEFENDING THEMSELVES FROM BEING SHOT WAS MORE IMPORTANT THAN MAKING PHONE CALLS!
Besides, backup would NOT have gotten there in time at this point. The shootout wasn't going to last 30 minutes to an hour in time for backup to arrive.
Dexter McCluster of Kansas City was only lightly brushed on an 89-yard
touchdown punt return. Adrian Peterson went 7 yards for an untouched
touchdown in London. Because the play was on first-and-goal, Pittsburgh
was in a run defense, yet laid no hand on Peterson.
Because NFL teams are always in a run defense on first-and-goal.
TMQ continues to think that neither pace nor skill-player speed but
downfield blocking is the key to Oregon's offense. If you've been
wondering how Oregon gets so many untouched long runs, downfield
blocking is the explanation. In most of football, including at the NFL
level, offensive linemen deliver one block and then stand watching the
play, while the wide receivers casually bump their men.
Just read that last sentence again. So most football linemen deliver one block and then stand and watch the play while the receivers don't really block hard. I didn't know this was true. This happens in most of football apparently. We all know Gregg would not make something up in order to help prove a point he wants to make.
Of course Gregg's crackpot theory on why Oregon is so successful on long runs doesn't really make sense. Once the running back gets past the line of scrimmage it isn't very often that he has offensive linemen running ahead of him blocking defenders. Sure, offensive linemen will often pull or occasionally end up ahead of the running back, but it doesn't happen often enough to attribute the long, untouched runs of the Oregon offense purely to good downfield blocking by the offensive linemen.
There's an NFL gentlemen's agreement that corners don't pursue an
opposite-side rush if wide receivers don't try to block them -- look
away from the ball during an NFL run and you're likely to see a wide
receiver and corner just watching.
I'm sure this happens, but I'm not sure about the gentlemen's agreement.
There are only two offensive linemen over 300 pounds on the Ducks' roster,
with the heaviest a 305-pound guy who is 6-foot-7. Ole Miss looked
sluggish against Alabama; one reason might be nine offensive linemen who
weigh at least 25 pounds more than the heaviest player at Oregon. Why
other football programs don't notice Oregon's success with downfield
blocking and switch to lean, fit offensive linemen is a minor mystery.
Perhaps this is a minor mystery to Gregg, but not every football program runs the fast-paced offense that Oregon runs. Alabama runs a slower, more power-running oriented offense that requires the offensive line to be bigger and stronger in order to open up holes for the Alabama running backs. Not every football offense is run like the Oregon offense, so not every offensive line scheme would succeed with the type of offensive linemen the Oregon Ducks have.
Because Pac-12 night games start too late for East Coast viewers, the
conference's impact on the evolution of football tactics is not widely
appreciated by sports media.
Apparently Gregg still lives in a world without cable and Internet, so watching Pac-12 game is impossible.
TMQ's Law of Weasel Coaches holds: When you hire a coach who only cares
about himself, you get a coach who only cares about himself. USC hired
Kiffin away from Tennessee under weasel circumstances. What made USC
think he would stop being a weasel?
So I would love to hear how this explains Nick Saban's success at Alabama and Brian Kelly's success at Notre Dame. Nick Saban has three national titles in the last four years. Saban left the Dolphins team after lying and saying he had no interest in the Alabama job, while I'm sure Gregg thinks Brian Kelly is a weasel for dumping Central Michigan and Cincinnati for better paying jobs. I guess the Law of Weasel Coaches doesn't always hold.
Mired in a losing streak and sputtering versus the lower-echelon Rams,
San Francisco faced fourth-and-inches on Les Mouflons 34 with 44 seconds
remaining before intermission, leading 7-3.
The losing streak was a streak of two games by the way. Two. Games. Also, when did winning a road game at halftime become "sputtering"?
This decision was not a "huge gamble," as announcers say of going for it
on fourth-and-short. St. Louis has the league's worst run defense,
while San Francisco held two timeouts, meaning if a first down was
obtained, the 49ers could use anything in the playbook to try for a
touchdown. Not only did the odds favor the play, but San Francisco
needed to shake up its young season, and succeeded.
I'm sure Gregg believes the 49ers saved their season by going for it on fourth down. I knew Gregg would work hard to find a way to weasel out of jumping off the 49ers bandwagon and claiming (but not actually stating it in order to avoid being wrong) the read option is a fad. So the 49ers weren't 1-2 because they had played three teams who made the playoffs in 2012, they were 1-2 because they needed to shake up their season with a fourth down try.
The New England at Atlanta game was one the Falcons had to win. Entering
1-2, if they can't defeat a quality opponent on their home field, they
are goin' nowhere this season. The Patriots did not have to win.
Entering at 3-0, they could have absorbed a loss without much trouble.
That New England dominated Atlanta might mean the Falcons are goin'
nowhere.
In 2011 the New York Giants lost to the Green Bay Packers (who went 15-1 on the season) on their (the Giants) home field to go 6-6. The Giants then went on to win the Super Bowl.
The FX series "The Bridge" wraps its first season this week. Initially
advertised as social commentary about Mexican poverty and American
hypocrisy, the social commentary lasted about two episodes and was
quickly replaced with a slasher-film-style splatter --
The show was never advertised about a social commentary on Mexican poverty and American hypocrisy. It was advertised as a show about a Mexican and American police officer joining forces to solve a murder that happened on the Mexican-American border. Sometimes I think Gregg outright lies and doesn't give a shit about whether his readers know he is lying.
Does this trailer look like a show about social commentary or a show about a killer who the police are trying to identify? Gregg is pretending to know how the show was marketed in order to help prove a point he wants to make. He lies and deceives his audience and I'm (not) surprised ESPN allows him to get away with it. It's just sad how many of his gullible readers believe the crap he writes is 100% the truth.
On "The Bridge," a serial killer murders two dozen people in the same
area in just a few weeks, yet only a couple local cops are working the
case.
Yet again, this is not completely true. The serial killer (may have...it was not definitively stated) killed a bunch of women in Juarez, but women goes missing all the time, the police are corrupt in Juarez and it's not that nobody cares any more than the Mexican police just don't have the time and manpower to search for all the missing women and police the murders. Plus, some of the murders have drug ties, which further pushes the police away from investigating. Also, it was indicated these women were murdered over a few years, not a couple of weeks.
The latter's character, viewers learn after a half-dozen episodes, has
known all along that the serial killer has a strong reason to want
revenge against him personally -- yet it never occurs to him mention
this, or to protect his family.
I'm about to have a seizure here. The amount of lying and misstating by Gregg is astounding here. It's not that serial killer wants revenge and the police officer didn't know this, it's that the police officer thought the serial killer was dead. The conversation between the officers went like this:
(Woman cop) "I think it's this guy who is killing the women."
(Male cop) "It can't be that guy. I knew that guy. I went to his funeral. He's dead."
(Woman cop) "That must make it hard for him to commit a string of murders, but I think he's alive."
(Male cop) "I think he's dead. Again, I was at the funeral."
(Woman cop) "Here is a picture of him on a driver's license using a different name."
(Male cop) "Yep, that's him. He's still alive. That's the killer then."
The reason it never occurred to the Mexican police officer to mention this serial killer has a vendetta against him is (a) the policeman didn't know he had a vendetta against him and (2) he thought the guy was dead. There's no reason, other than to make "The Bridge" seem dumber than it is, for Gregg to mislead his readers like he does.
The serial killer has a small wireless device that allows him to shut
down the electric power at the United States-Mexico border by pressing a
button, then press another button to turn the power back on; this
device is never explained. He possesses unlimited money and resources,
unexplained and odd since viewers are told he was fired by the FBI years
ago after flunking a psych evaluation. He's a skilled surgeon, which is
never explained, and also has plumbing skills. He needs only minutes to
rig cars so the doors can't be opened from the inside. He can overpower
police officers without making a sound. He can sneak up on people in
public in broad daylight without his targets noticing or calling "Help!"
when grabbed.
It helps he tends to stab these people before they can call out "Help!" and it was established this guy was very, very good at his job when he worked for the FBI. Otherwise, some of what he did seemed impossible but made the show fun to watch. I'm one of those weird people who watches a television show to be entertained. Crazy to do that I guess.
When a witness the serial killer wants dead runs away from Kruger's
character into the streets of El Paso, the serial killer knows in
advance which direction she will run; he kills her and vanishes, though
cops are converging from all directions.
There were three police officers chasing this girl and these three officers weren't aware the girl had run away until a few moments after she left. So yes, the killer knew which way the girl was going, but it's not like there was a team of cops hot on the girl's trail because she had a head start on them.
Most absurd, at a black-tie party, the serial killer follows a man into
the washroom and murders him with a knife. Young and seemingly fit, the
man does not resist and never cries for help.
The man who got killed was washing his hands and the killer came from behind him and slit his throat. My throat has never been slit, and I'm guessing Gregg's hasn't either, but I am merely suggesting that perhaps it is difficult to resist or cry for help once your throat has been slit. Again, I'm not sure Gregg actually watched this show.
FX's "The Bridge" is a remake of a Scandinavian television show about a
crime at a bridge between Denmark and Sweden. Before centering the
remake on a bridge between Texas and Mexico, producers first proposed
using the bridge between Detroit and Windsor, Ontario...If the Detroit-Windsor setting had been chosen, it would have been a
tunnel into a Tim Horton's doughnut shop, used to smuggle
government-financed Canadian prescription drugs.
Just hilarious. I'm guessing the police would spend a lot of time at Tim Horton's because we all know that police like donuts.
Seeking to prove that I really do write "game over" in my notebook, a
week ago, yours truly tweeted of a contest still in the first quarter,
"game over" -- and it came to pass that I was right. I promised to try
this again. When the Bills kicked on fourth-and-2 from the Baltimore 9, I
tweeted "game over." Verily, what I foresaw did not come to pass: the
Bills prevailing over the defending champions.
This proves that Gregg writing "Game over" in a notebook does not mean a game is over. This also means that a team who punts on fourth-and-short isn't destined to lose the game just because they punted on fourth down. Also, Gregg has done two live Twitter tests to determine when his "Game over" has been accurate and he has gotten one right and one wrong. I imagine this is around the same percentage of times Gregg gets "Game over" correct prior to posting this prediction on Twitter. I also imagine Gregg will stop posting his live "Game over" comments on Twitter for fear his readers will start to see through his bullshit.
"Game over" doesn't go into my notebook any time a team kicks on fourth-and-short -- fourth-and-short kicks can be smart moves.
Yet, Gregg has consistently presented this to his readers as if anytime a team kicks instead of going for it on fourth-and-short it will doom that team to defeat.
Trailing 14-3 on the road versus high-scoring Denver, Chip Kelly took a
field goal on fourth-and-4 from the Broncs' 7 -- I wrote "game over" in
my notebook.
If he doesn't post it on Twitter, it doesn't happen, especially now that we know for sure Gregg is wrong about his "Game over" proclamations.
My feeling in the first quarter of Baltimore at Buffalo was that you
can't dance with the champ, you've got to knock them down -- settling
for a field goal on fourth-and-short from close range against the
defending champs isn't enough. Obviously I will now reassess this
feeling, and the live Twitter test concept.
Yeah, Gregg isn't going to reassess his feeling. He's simply going to stop posting his predictions of "Game over" on Twitter, then claim he wrote "Game over" in his notebook and make claims after the fact that a team punting on fourth-and-short doomed that team to defeat.
Officiating was odd in both directions. Two weeks ago, Cleveland coaches
complained the Baltimore offensive linemen were lining up off the line
of scrimmage -- being set back a bit is helpful to pass-blocking.
Sunday, Baltimore offensive linemen consistently were lined up
illegally; zebras only flagged this once.
Apparently the Ravens offensive linemen weren't consistently lined up illegally if the officials only threw a flag for this once.
Indiana of Pennsylvania 20, California of Pennsylvania 7 in the annual
Tuesday Morning Quarterback Obscure College Game of the Year. Located in
Indiana, Pa., Indiana of Pennsylvania has an optional
"Learning Management System that offers collaborative learning tools,
activity-based learning and interaction with materials that encourage
critical reflection." Isn't that what the entire college is supposed to
do?
Yes, but this is appears to be a computer program that achieves these goals, not a class at the school.
Next Week Cameron Jordan wears Air Jordans to Cameron Indoor Stadium.
I'm just surprised Gregg didn't say that Cameron Jordan was with Jordan Cameron when he was wearing the Air Jordans in Cameron Indoor Stadium.
I look forward to next week's TMQ when after New Orleans and New England lose this weekend Gregg jumps off their bandwagon and then one week week later after these teams win their next game Gregg jumps right back on the bandwagon using a bullshit reason for why he did so. I'm sure it would have to do with undrafted players or going for it on fourth down.
Saturday, October 5, 2013
Thursday, October 3, 2013
2 comments Tim Keown Was Intrigued by the Fight Between a Latino and American Baseball Player
We have seen Tim Keown comment before on Hispanics coming into the United States and taking the jobs of American baseball players. After the near-brawl between the Atlanta Braves and the Milwaukee Brewers, Tim Keown has decided to try his best to learn something from this incident. One may say, "All we can learn is that pitchers don't like to be shown up when a player hits a home run off him, but if a pitcher doesn't want to be shown up don't previously have hit the batter and then try not to give up a home run to that same batter." Tim Keown thinks there is more we can learn from this incident than just that. We can learn Americans players control their emotions and Latino players do not. It's true that we can learn that, but we can also learn about ourselves, dammit.
Great theater should never be discouraged. For that reason, there's no need for the actions of Carlos Gomez and Brian McCann to send you to the nearest fainting couch, muttering about what to tell the children.
My brief summary on this "theater."
1. Paul Maholm had hit Gomez earlier in the year so it's natural for Gomez to strut a bit after he hits a home run off Maholm.
2. Brian McCann was out of line (well, actually in the line) and should have just ignored Gomez as he crossed the plate rather than confront him on the basepaths. Shake your head, say "check the standings" or do something like that. Don't try to start a fight in the basepaths and then never really apologize for it.
3. Why is it three times in the past months teams that have shown up the Braves? Is it because teams know they can get the Braves un-focused, are the Braves assholes, or are they as a team just really, really sensitive?
4. There's no way this brawl should have happened because the Braves players should have been smarter to avoid any suspensions that could have resulted from the brawl. They needed to focus on the postseason, not jawing with a player from a non-playoff team.
5. No one is fainting or worried about what to tell the children. The Braves struggled going into that game and should be more worried about hitting the ball better and NOT giving up home runs, as opposed to an opponent's reaction upon hitting a home run off a Braves pitcher.
6. Freddie Freeman should not have been ejected.
Gomez and the Braves turned a game nobody cared about into something thought-provoking and hilarious. A rare feat. So thanks, guys.
Ah yes, many sportswriters prefer drama to the actual sporting contest.
There are so many layers and sublayers here. There's the whole idea of whether Paul Maholm, following the tradition of many before him, has at times decided that hitting Gomez with a fastball is a better approach than trying to get him out.
Well, it seems Maholm has trouble getting Gomez out this season at least. So maybe he should just not suck and find a way to get Gomez out and avoid all of this trouble.
There's Gomez and his General Sherman trip around the bases
A Civil War reference. Only 150 years too late.
With one swing of the bat and one nearly complete home run trot, Gomez ignited a series of events that raised a ton of questions while answering few.
I really think Tim Keown may be making this brawl out to mean a lot more than it really does. The batter hit a home run, stared at it, and then talked shit to the opposing players as he rounded the bases. The opposing players talked shit back as the player rounded the bases and then the opposing catcher got really angry and confronted the batter in the basepaths on the way to home plate. I'm not sure "a ton" of questions were raised. It seems pretty much like a simple brawl in baseball and thank goodness no one got hurt.
Gomez believes Maholm drilled him intentionally two months ago, and this was his payback. "You hit me. I hit you," were apparently the words that rocked the Braves' world. Is that a worse offense than intentionally hitting someone?
No. There's no "worse" or "better" offense in this situation. There is no ranking of whether a hitting a batter is worse than strutting after you hit a home run off the pitcher who hit you. If the batter wasn't hit intentionally then the batter is being oversensitive. If the opposing team doesn't want to give up a home run to the batter and watch him strut, don't give up a home run to the batter. I think Tim Keown may be trying to make too much of this incident.
(I keep reading and hearing about Gomez's home run "celebration," but what I saw was not a celebration, not with all that anger attached. It was a spiteful display, equal parts vengeful and belittling. Don't get me wrong: I enjoyed all parts of it, but I didn't detect any joy.)
I think there was joy in being spiteful, vengeful and able to belittle the Braves for hitting him a few months ago and then being able to hit a home run.
The greedy among us keep coming back to one specific question: What will McCann do for his next act?
How about have a great postseason and help the Braves win a playoff series rather than play the part of "Sheriff Over Baseball's Unwritten Rules"?
After confronting Marlins pitcher Jose Fernandez at home plate less than three weeks ago to discuss transgressions real or imagined after a home run,
Fernandez just happened to be pitching well against the Braves that night and then hit a home run. Notice a trend here? A team plays well against the Braves and McCann (and company) get pissy and start trying to be the unwritten rules police. Maybe they are just bad sports and can't enjoy the idea they are getting beaten, so they get pissy when an opposing player shows any type of joy at having hit a home run.
he upped the ante by walking down the third-base line to stop Gomez before he could feel the satisfaction of his shoe hitting the plate.
If there was ever a time to bring up that the Braves are in the playoffs and the Brewers are not, this may be it. Don't become a human barricade in order to try and be the sheriff who judges which actions are appropriate and which are not.
Is there a chance McCann is working on a higher plane? Knowing his team has been struggling -- and perhaps discounted as a legitimate World Series contender as the postseason approaches -- is his judge-and-jury act a calculated effort to send a message to his team and any future opponents?
There is also a good chance the only message McCann is sending is that the Braves are more concerned with what the opposing team is doing as opposed to being worried about whether the Braves are hitting the baseball and playing well enough to win a playoff series or two or three. It shows me the priorities of the team could very well be in the wrong place.
If his motivation was to motivate, the Braves' response -- two hits and zero runs off Kyle Lohse in their nine offensive innings after the incident -- should have him considering other approaches.
By the way, two games later Chris Johnson threw his helmet in the dugout and got into a brief argument with Terry Pendleton. Perhaps the Braves have frustration stemming from the fact they haven't played well over the past month or maybe the entire team needs anger management. Either way, McCann probably was not working on a higher plane and was simply reflecting the hot head attitude the rest of the team tends to show every time they get their panties in a wad at the "disrespect" an opposing player is showing them...in a not-quite-coincidence usually this perceived disrespect is being shown while the opposing team is beating the Braves.
The responsible reaction is to state the obvious: Everybody was wrong -- Gomez, Freeman, Gomez, McCann, Gomez.
Considering this really wasn't that notable of an incident, then let's just say every party was wrong. Gomez should quit strutting and the Braves need to worry about things other than how respected they feel while protecting unwritten baseball rules.
At the risk of falling face-first into rhetorical quicksand -- I imagine it looks like Alpha-Bits, only thicker and smellier -- what about the cultural aspects of this? (Wait, is that an elephant in the room?)
Good point. Jose Fernandez is Hispanic, Carlos Gomez is Hispanic. The Braves just hate players with Hispanic names. Don't tell Fredi Gonzalez though.
It's a little frightening that Tim Keown is going to look at the cultural aspects of this situation, especially considering he wrote the article I linked in the beginning of this post about how Latin American players are taking the jobs of hard-working American baseball players. I'm not sure I trust Tim to anchor a conversation such as this one.
White players seem to have a death grip on The Code, while Latin players seem more comfortable with their emotions.
Asian players have no emotions and black players are all super-athletic and don't have to work as hard. Is there a stereotype that I missed?
To an extent, Tim Keown is a little bit correct and this is one of the ramifications of baseball being such a worldly game. Different cultures don't all act the same way. The cultural aspects of this seem to be that Latin players don't like to get hit with a baseball, just like white players don't like to get hit with a baseball.
The majority of American-born players were raised in a hypervigilant and ultrasensitive baseball environment. From Little League on up, the emphasis is on keeping emotions hermetically sealed. Do your job, keep quiet about it and by all means take offense when someone strays from your ethos.
If American-born players are raised to keep their emotions sealed then how does that explain American-born players taking offense when someone strays from their ethos? Doesn't this mean American-born players are raised to not show up someone else, but to use their own judgment when they think they are being disrespected and therefore this allows others to choose when that American-born player loses control of his emotions? In that way of looking at it, perhaps the American-born players aren't taught to keep their emotions heremetically sealed. After all, getting pissy and standing in the baseline when you feel you have been disrespected isn't exactly keeping your emotions in check.
Latin players come from a different environment, with fewer hang-ups and perhaps without the same focus on narrow, ill-defined rules.
So you mean the unwritten rules that aren't really rules and only certain players pay attention to these rules as a set of guidelines on the appropriate type of behavior aren't universal? Brian McCann would like to stand in the baseline and refuse to allow you to pass in order to discuss this more fully.
One side preaches the humility necessary to achieve success in a sport that is all about failure. The other sees a sport that is so fraught with failure and frustration that grand achievements should sometimes be honored accordingly.
It's the grand struggle between acting like you have been there and getting excited over your personal achievements. Of course, the media picks and chooses when they like their Latino athletes to celebrate grand achievements. Yasiel Puig is an asshole for staring at his home runs, but it was just so cute to watch Sammy Sosa run out to right field with a flag in his hand at the start of a game or do a little hop and happy stroll around the bases when he hit a home run. Of course then you have Mariano Rivera who was very business-like in how he did his job and Jonathan Papelbon who sometimes acts like he cured cancer after getting a save.
If everyone approached the game like McCann -- in other words, if everyone always abided by the Big League Code of Honor -- baseball would lose something. And if every home run trot became an exercise in angry self-aggrandizement, the game would be anarchy.
I really think Tim Keown is blowing this game out of proportion into something it is not. Also, the annoying part about Brian McCann's actions is that it is clear he expects everyone to always abide by his honor code. It's one violation of the fake honor code that caused him to stand in the baseline and then get in Carlos Gomez's face. McCann seems to expect everyone to abide by the so-called "Big League Code of Honor."
It's clear Gomez chose the wrong time and place to deliver his message of personal redemption. Within the rigid constructs of the game, he was wrong and admitted as much.
I'm not sure Brian McCann ever said he was wrong to stand in the baseline and not allow Carlos Gomez to pass. I think that's wrong, that McCann acts like a jerk and then isn't sorry when it is clear that he was in some way in the wrong to block the baseline. Holding up unwritten rules you perceive to be violated is fine, but starting a brawl when your team is a week away from starting the playoffs is not fine.
And amid the moral, cultural and procedural questions raised by this random confluence of events, one stands alone: Who among us is not disappointed the Brewers and Braves don't play again right away?
Not me, because that would mean the Braves weren't in the playoffs and were still playing regular season games. I much prefer watching them play postseason games. Of course, I just hope no opposing player does anything to piss off Brian McCann or else he will risk a suspension to enforce unwritten rules that aren't his responsibility to enforce.
Great theater should never be discouraged. For that reason, there's no need for the actions of Carlos Gomez and Brian McCann to send you to the nearest fainting couch, muttering about what to tell the children.
My brief summary on this "theater."
1. Paul Maholm had hit Gomez earlier in the year so it's natural for Gomez to strut a bit after he hits a home run off Maholm.
2. Brian McCann was out of line (well, actually in the line) and should have just ignored Gomez as he crossed the plate rather than confront him on the basepaths. Shake your head, say "check the standings" or do something like that. Don't try to start a fight in the basepaths and then never really apologize for it.
3. Why is it three times in the past months teams that have shown up the Braves? Is it because teams know they can get the Braves un-focused, are the Braves assholes, or are they as a team just really, really sensitive?
4. There's no way this brawl should have happened because the Braves players should have been smarter to avoid any suspensions that could have resulted from the brawl. They needed to focus on the postseason, not jawing with a player from a non-playoff team.
5. No one is fainting or worried about what to tell the children. The Braves struggled going into that game and should be more worried about hitting the ball better and NOT giving up home runs, as opposed to an opponent's reaction upon hitting a home run off a Braves pitcher.
6. Freddie Freeman should not have been ejected.
Gomez and the Braves turned a game nobody cared about into something thought-provoking and hilarious. A rare feat. So thanks, guys.
Ah yes, many sportswriters prefer drama to the actual sporting contest.
There are so many layers and sublayers here. There's the whole idea of whether Paul Maholm, following the tradition of many before him, has at times decided that hitting Gomez with a fastball is a better approach than trying to get him out.
Well, it seems Maholm has trouble getting Gomez out this season at least. So maybe he should just not suck and find a way to get Gomez out and avoid all of this trouble.
There's Gomez and his General Sherman trip around the bases
A Civil War reference. Only 150 years too late.
With one swing of the bat and one nearly complete home run trot, Gomez ignited a series of events that raised a ton of questions while answering few.
I really think Tim Keown may be making this brawl out to mean a lot more than it really does. The batter hit a home run, stared at it, and then talked shit to the opposing players as he rounded the bases. The opposing players talked shit back as the player rounded the bases and then the opposing catcher got really angry and confronted the batter in the basepaths on the way to home plate. I'm not sure "a ton" of questions were raised. It seems pretty much like a simple brawl in baseball and thank goodness no one got hurt.
Gomez believes Maholm drilled him intentionally two months ago, and this was his payback. "You hit me. I hit you," were apparently the words that rocked the Braves' world. Is that a worse offense than intentionally hitting someone?
No. There's no "worse" or "better" offense in this situation. There is no ranking of whether a hitting a batter is worse than strutting after you hit a home run off the pitcher who hit you. If the batter wasn't hit intentionally then the batter is being oversensitive. If the opposing team doesn't want to give up a home run to the batter and watch him strut, don't give up a home run to the batter. I think Tim Keown may be trying to make too much of this incident.
(I keep reading and hearing about Gomez's home run "celebration," but what I saw was not a celebration, not with all that anger attached. It was a spiteful display, equal parts vengeful and belittling. Don't get me wrong: I enjoyed all parts of it, but I didn't detect any joy.)
I think there was joy in being spiteful, vengeful and able to belittle the Braves for hitting him a few months ago and then being able to hit a home run.
The greedy among us keep coming back to one specific question: What will McCann do for his next act?
How about have a great postseason and help the Braves win a playoff series rather than play the part of "Sheriff Over Baseball's Unwritten Rules"?
After confronting Marlins pitcher Jose Fernandez at home plate less than three weeks ago to discuss transgressions real or imagined after a home run,
Fernandez just happened to be pitching well against the Braves that night and then hit a home run. Notice a trend here? A team plays well against the Braves and McCann (and company) get pissy and start trying to be the unwritten rules police. Maybe they are just bad sports and can't enjoy the idea they are getting beaten, so they get pissy when an opposing player shows any type of joy at having hit a home run.
he upped the ante by walking down the third-base line to stop Gomez before he could feel the satisfaction of his shoe hitting the plate.
If there was ever a time to bring up that the Braves are in the playoffs and the Brewers are not, this may be it. Don't become a human barricade in order to try and be the sheriff who judges which actions are appropriate and which are not.
Is there a chance McCann is working on a higher plane? Knowing his team has been struggling -- and perhaps discounted as a legitimate World Series contender as the postseason approaches -- is his judge-and-jury act a calculated effort to send a message to his team and any future opponents?
There is also a good chance the only message McCann is sending is that the Braves are more concerned with what the opposing team is doing as opposed to being worried about whether the Braves are hitting the baseball and playing well enough to win a playoff series or two or three. It shows me the priorities of the team could very well be in the wrong place.
If his motivation was to motivate, the Braves' response -- two hits and zero runs off Kyle Lohse in their nine offensive innings after the incident -- should have him considering other approaches.
By the way, two games later Chris Johnson threw his helmet in the dugout and got into a brief argument with Terry Pendleton. Perhaps the Braves have frustration stemming from the fact they haven't played well over the past month or maybe the entire team needs anger management. Either way, McCann probably was not working on a higher plane and was simply reflecting the hot head attitude the rest of the team tends to show every time they get their panties in a wad at the "disrespect" an opposing player is showing them...in a not-quite-coincidence usually this perceived disrespect is being shown while the opposing team is beating the Braves.
The responsible reaction is to state the obvious: Everybody was wrong -- Gomez, Freeman, Gomez, McCann, Gomez.
Considering this really wasn't that notable of an incident, then let's just say every party was wrong. Gomez should quit strutting and the Braves need to worry about things other than how respected they feel while protecting unwritten baseball rules.
At the risk of falling face-first into rhetorical quicksand -- I imagine it looks like Alpha-Bits, only thicker and smellier -- what about the cultural aspects of this? (Wait, is that an elephant in the room?)
Good point. Jose Fernandez is Hispanic, Carlos Gomez is Hispanic. The Braves just hate players with Hispanic names. Don't tell Fredi Gonzalez though.
It's a little frightening that Tim Keown is going to look at the cultural aspects of this situation, especially considering he wrote the article I linked in the beginning of this post about how Latin American players are taking the jobs of hard-working American baseball players. I'm not sure I trust Tim to anchor a conversation such as this one.
White players seem to have a death grip on The Code, while Latin players seem more comfortable with their emotions.
Asian players have no emotions and black players are all super-athletic and don't have to work as hard. Is there a stereotype that I missed?
To an extent, Tim Keown is a little bit correct and this is one of the ramifications of baseball being such a worldly game. Different cultures don't all act the same way. The cultural aspects of this seem to be that Latin players don't like to get hit with a baseball, just like white players don't like to get hit with a baseball.
The majority of American-born players were raised in a hypervigilant and ultrasensitive baseball environment. From Little League on up, the emphasis is on keeping emotions hermetically sealed. Do your job, keep quiet about it and by all means take offense when someone strays from your ethos.
If American-born players are raised to keep their emotions sealed then how does that explain American-born players taking offense when someone strays from their ethos? Doesn't this mean American-born players are raised to not show up someone else, but to use their own judgment when they think they are being disrespected and therefore this allows others to choose when that American-born player loses control of his emotions? In that way of looking at it, perhaps the American-born players aren't taught to keep their emotions heremetically sealed. After all, getting pissy and standing in the baseline when you feel you have been disrespected isn't exactly keeping your emotions in check.
Latin players come from a different environment, with fewer hang-ups and perhaps without the same focus on narrow, ill-defined rules.
So you mean the unwritten rules that aren't really rules and only certain players pay attention to these rules as a set of guidelines on the appropriate type of behavior aren't universal? Brian McCann would like to stand in the baseline and refuse to allow you to pass in order to discuss this more fully.
One side preaches the humility necessary to achieve success in a sport that is all about failure. The other sees a sport that is so fraught with failure and frustration that grand achievements should sometimes be honored accordingly.
It's the grand struggle between acting like you have been there and getting excited over your personal achievements. Of course, the media picks and chooses when they like their Latino athletes to celebrate grand achievements. Yasiel Puig is an asshole for staring at his home runs, but it was just so cute to watch Sammy Sosa run out to right field with a flag in his hand at the start of a game or do a little hop and happy stroll around the bases when he hit a home run. Of course then you have Mariano Rivera who was very business-like in how he did his job and Jonathan Papelbon who sometimes acts like he cured cancer after getting a save.
If everyone approached the game like McCann -- in other words, if everyone always abided by the Big League Code of Honor -- baseball would lose something. And if every home run trot became an exercise in angry self-aggrandizement, the game would be anarchy.
I really think Tim Keown is blowing this game out of proportion into something it is not. Also, the annoying part about Brian McCann's actions is that it is clear he expects everyone to always abide by his honor code. It's one violation of the fake honor code that caused him to stand in the baseline and then get in Carlos Gomez's face. McCann seems to expect everyone to abide by the so-called "Big League Code of Honor."
It's clear Gomez chose the wrong time and place to deliver his message of personal redemption. Within the rigid constructs of the game, he was wrong and admitted as much.
I'm not sure Brian McCann ever said he was wrong to stand in the baseline and not allow Carlos Gomez to pass. I think that's wrong, that McCann acts like a jerk and then isn't sorry when it is clear that he was in some way in the wrong to block the baseline. Holding up unwritten rules you perceive to be violated is fine, but starting a brawl when your team is a week away from starting the playoffs is not fine.
And amid the moral, cultural and procedural questions raised by this random confluence of events, one stands alone: Who among us is not disappointed the Brewers and Braves don't play again right away?
Not me, because that would mean the Braves weren't in the playoffs and were still playing regular season games. I much prefer watching them play postseason games. Of course, I just hope no opposing player does anything to piss off Brian McCann or else he will risk a suspension to enforce unwritten rules that aren't his responsibility to enforce.
Wednesday, October 2, 2013
4 comments Mitch Albom Sits Us Down and Gives Us a Lecture about Caring
There is a list of topics I am tired of discussing. Chief among them is steroids. Mitch Albom is not tired of discussing steroids and he writes a column stating that fans SHOULD start caring about steroids because of the kids and because fans are too focused on winning. The game of baseball has been ruined in some ways by PED's, but Mitch needs to stop lecturing us. If the fans don't want to care about steroids anymore they don't have to. Mitch just wishes the fans weren't so damn concerned with winning games, since sportswriters don't judge teams/players/coaches on that metric also.
“Fans don’t care about drugs, they care about wins.” That’s the common refrain.
It's a refrain that shows how tired of discussing PED's fans are. They are tired of writers getting on their high horse about PED's and tired of baseball players getting caught using PED's. It's gotten old quickly.
You heard it again Monday, after the latest deluge of bad baseball news. Thirteen major league players were suspended, most for 50 games, for their involvement with performance-enhancing drugs in the Biogenesis scandal.
And yet, baseball has managed to carry on while the fans of baseball throw their morality out the door by simply not caring as much anymore that a player used PED's. There's only so much outrage the fans can stand before they just want to watch baseball again. I personally have reached that point. It's not that I don't care, because I do, it's just I can only muster so much phony outrage and shock that a MLB player would use PED's to gain an advantage.
One of those players was Tigers shortstop Jhonny Peralta — who once claimed anyone who said he used PEDs was “lying.”
He will be out of baseball until late September.
Perhaps fans are too jaded now. I don't obviously speak for all fans, but I find it hilarious that somehow sportswriters are able to act shocked that a baseball player would lie about his use of steroids. Who would have ever thought a player would lie about using PED's? It's almost moronic to even ask an MLB player if he uses or has used PED's because either way the answer will be "no." These sportswriters are screaming into a void at this point. No one likes the use of PED's in baseball, but many fans have come to accept it as a current state of the game and one big reason why the players are drug tested.
Of course, trying to take away Mitch Albom's moral outrage is nearly impossible. He makes a living off being morally outraged and writing columns that lie about whether two Michigan State players atten---I mean---writing columns about how baseball players are cheaters, and dammit, why don't we care as much as he does?
“What are the Tigers going to do?” you heard certain Detroit fans say. “How do they replace his bat? What will this do to their chances? Will he be back in time for the playoffs?”
They traded for Jose Iglesias. They won't replace his bat. This may or may not hurt their chances. Yes, he could be back for the playoffs.
You didn’t hear these fans lamenting the ethics of juicing your body — in flagrant violation of the rules.
Right, because we have had this conversation countless times before. It's old. Players cheat, there are measures to prevent cheating and they may/may not work. I am exhausted of talking about PED's. I want to watch and talk about baseball, not talk about the physiological changes that PED's can provide to a player's body, reaction time, or pitch speed.
You didn’t hear them decry the example it sets for kids.
Because worrying about "the kids" seems silly. Baseball players are role models, but decrying the example set for kids is something a person like Mitch Albom would worry about. "What about the kids?" is an irritating mantra. I don't think Mitch understands that many fans care about steroids but really, really, really want to move past the fact MLB players use PED's. This is as opposed to sportswriters who have terrible short-term memories and act like the next time a player gets busted for violating MLB's drug policy is the first time a player has ever violated the MLB drug policy. Let me let Mitch in on a secret:
There is an MLB player RIGHT NOW using PED's and he has gotten caught yet. The kids don't even know this and this player is walking around setting a terrible example. I've accepted this is true, while Mitch still tries to muster up some outrage. In fact, I think Mitch would rather talk about PED's than talk about baseball.
You didn’t hear them say “cheating undermines winning.”
Partially because it is almost impossible to know which players on which teams are cheating, so cheating may undermine winning, unless a player on the opposing team is also cheating, in which case both teams are cheating and undermining winning. At that point, my brain explodes and I want to quit talking about PED's.
This portion of the fan base cares only about the Tigers and how far the Tigers can go.
To an extent, yes. What else would you like for the Tigers fan base to care about? Boycott the games because there are immoral players who cheat? Are Tigers fans supposed to say, "I like sports for the entertainment aspect of it and the Tigers are my favorite team, but I would rather the Tigers lose than ever have a single cheater on their roster." Sports fans are fans because they love the sport and many fans know they have to ignore some of the negative aspects of sports to enjoy sports overall.
In which case, we offer the name Nelson Cruz.
Maybe you remember him. Two years ago, Cruz was the single biggest reason the Tigers didn’t get to a World Series. In the American League Championship Series, the Texas outfielder hit six home runs in six games, plus two doubles and 13 RBIs. Think about that. Thirteen RBIs in six games? That’s a two-run cushion in every game — thanks to one player!
That's crazy! Nelson Cruz was cheating and helped the Rangers make it to the World Series. How unforeseen!
Remember that time Johnny Peralta hit .389/.421/.778 against the Yankees in the 2012 ALCS? He hit two home runs and had seven hits in four games. That's almost two hits in every game! Looks like the Yankees got hurt by a cheater.
Now let's go to the Yankees team and see if the Angels remember A-Rod hitting three home runs and having six RBI in six games during the 2009 ALCS. That's a one-run cushion every game! Can't believe the Angels got hurt by a cheater.
So what about the 2002 Giants team? They had Francisco Rodriguez of the Angels pitching against them in the World Series and he has a history of abusing women. Rodriguez pitched 8.2 innings against the Giants and had 13 strikeouts over those innings in helping the Angels win the World Series. Yet, the Giants got burned by a guy who is a terrible person. What about the kids? Kids can't look up to Francisco Rodriguez. So the Giants got burned by a terrible person.
Then you think about the St. Louis Cardinals and Atlanta Braves, both teams who lost to the 2002 Giants in the playoffs, while the Giants had Barry Bonds on the team. He's a cheater. Both the Cardinals and Braves got burned by a cheater. How is that fair?
I think you see where I am going with this. You bring up one player on Team A that cheated and burned Team B by cheating, then you could also bring up a player from Team B that cheated and burned Team C.
Cruz won MVP of that series, and left Tiger fans in stunned disappointment. Only now we learn he was involved with PEDs — and will sit out the next 50 games. What if PEDs had been the difference in his performance?
What if PED's had been the difference in Johnny Peralta's performance in the 2012 ALCS? See, Mitch Albom doesn't think about this because he's too busy trying to appeal to the sense of loss and anger that Tiger fans must feel in getting beaten by a guy who was later found to have been using PED's. He doesn't think that Johnny Peralta could have screwed over the Yankees by using PED's against them in last year's ALCS.
Might the Tigers have been denied a World Series at least partly because of something illegal in somebody’s bloodstream?
If so, Detroit fans, would you care then?
Maybe, but then Tigers fans could look at their team and wonder if a player helped Detroit win a series while having something illegal in his bloodstream. I don't speak for Tigers fans, but I don't think it is a case of them not caring. They are just tired of hearing about PED's. Peralta will serve his suspension and we will all move on.
Now, I have no idea whether Cruz was using PEDs at that time, no idea whether they worked or didn’t.
It seems like you do have a pretty good idea whether Cruz was using PED's at that time because you are strongly hinting the Tigers were denied a World Series due to Cruz's hot hitting in the American League Championship Series.
He told the media Monday he took them only for a stomach disorder at the start of the 2012 season. But earlier this year he “denied” ever using such products.
I think Cruz's story was that he didn't know the substance was on the banned list and had used it for his stomach. Who knows what to believe, which is why I just assume Cruz is lying, and this helps me sleep okay at night.
That’s the problem. Once an athlete uses PEDs and another doesn’t, you have no fair comparison, and the truth becomes like a sinker pitch.
Yes, like a "sinker pitch." Then we find out the player isn't lying which is like a "curveball pitch."
Could Mitch sound more awkward in talking about a pitcher's pitch repertoire?
Peralta admitted in a prepared statement Monday that “in spring of 2012, I made a terrible mistake that I deeply regret.” The timing is odd, since in the spring of 2012 he was coming off his best season, in which he hit .299. And for the 2012 season, he had a tepid year at the plate.
It's almost like these PED's that Mitch is freaking out about and lecturing fans to really be concerned about may not just automatically make a baseball player turn into Babe Ruth. It's so weird for Mitch when his preconceived notions turn out to be false. He thought all baseball player turned into Babe Ruth when they took PED's, but how does that explain Johnny Peralta using PED's and not having a great year. Hmm...
Then again, this is the same guy who said in a February statement: “I have never used performance-enhancing drugs. Period. Anybody who says otherwise is lying.“
Apparently, he was the one lying. And so we must also question anything he says about his substance use.
Exactly. It's like a writer who lies about whether he saw two athletes a sporting event and publishes a story regarding these athletes being at this very sporting event. Then these players publicly state they never attended this sporting event. We never know when this sportswriter is lying, so we should just ignore him completely. Boy, this is awkward.
He might have injected human growth hormone or might have thrown the stuff in the garbage.
Who knows?
I'm guessing if Peralta bought it, he used it. Though this does bring up a good point about how it would have been nice for baseball to at least have a positive drug test to suspend Peralta, but I guess that ship has sailed.
But we do know this. You need to care. Unless you see no difference between baseball and professional wrestling, you need to care. You need to be concerned that fairness is preserved.
Thanks Dad. Fans need to care about the PED's that Mitch Albom isn't entirely sure Peralta took and isn't entirely sure made Peralta a better baseball player. We must be very concerned. After all, sports are about vigilance and not about being entertained. It's not like any other sport could ever have a PED problem and it's not like fans are annoyed at how PED's are sucking the fun out of the game so many have chosen to just ignore them and let the cheaters suffer a suspension.
Otherwise, there is no game. There’s just the needle and the damage done.
That's a Neil Young song quote! Keep on rocking in the free world baseball players! Keep using PED's and it won't hurt, because only love can break your heart.
Now, this is not just about the fans.
Except we are all assholes for not all being super-concerned like Mitch is super-concerned.
Just as certain fans would rather not know, plenty of teams were just as happy to look the other way.
The commissioner, Bud Selig, was once too slow on the PED draw. He’s gotten a little quicker. But thanks to the players union contract, even Monday’s suspensions allow most of the players to get back on the field before the season ends and be available if their team needs them for the playoffs.
Damn MLB for giving these PED users the suspension limit that was agreed to in the Collective Bargaining Agreement and not trying to unilaterally increase the suspension in violation of the CBA. Those owners are always trying to stick to the rules they have agreed to.
Will the Tigers activate Peralta when his suspension is up? My guess is absolutely — if they need him and think he’ll be effective.
The Giants didn't allow Melky Cabrera to come back last year, so there is a precedent that teams don't allow player suspended for PED use to come back and play in the postseason. So who really knows? Maybe Mitch Albom can write a story about how he sat in the stands with Johnny Peralta during the playoffs and it turns out Peralta was actually playing shortstop for the Tigers at the time Albom claims he was sitting with Peralta.
The Tigers used him right through Sunday afternoon — even after trading for his replacement — knowing full well his suspension was coming.
If the Tigers had a moral stance, they wouldn’t have done that.
The Tigers organization is immoral, obviously. How dare they try to win a baseball game prior to Johnny Peralta being suspended. They should have benched him or immediately traded him.
Even Tigers previously harsh on the PED question were telling media members Monday that Peralta just made “a mistake.” That’s what teammates and front offices do to a valued member of their lineup. And if the Tigers activate him and he plays well, Peralta may earn himself a fatter free-agent deal when he becomes eligible in the off-season
Damn the free market that allows teams to pay what they choose to pay for a free agent. Also, a player's teammates will rarely throw one of their teammates under the bus. I know Mitch wouldn't understand how sports works, but usually teammates try to stick by each other and not create a clubhouse issue where there isn't one.
Hey, it worked for San Francisco’s Melky Cabrera, who was suspended 50 games last year for actually failing a drug test and still signed a two-year free-agent deal for more money with another team.
To be fair, Cabrera was in line for a much bigger and longer contract prior to being busted for using PED's and he didn't receive as big of a deal as he could have gotten prior to his suspension.
That leaves you. What are yours? Are you in the group that doesn’t want cheaters in the game? Or the group that says as long as the guy wears your city on his chest everything is forgivable?
I say if one of my favorite players tests positive for PED's I will be disappointed in him and probably be suspicious of any great numbers he puts up in the future. Once that player serves his suspension I will forgive him and continue to cheer for him because he plays for my favorite team. Hey, I cheered for Gary Sheffield and J.D. Drew at certain points in my life so all that matters to me is the name on the chest in nearly every situation. I'm sorry this makes Mitch Albom sad, but once a player serves his suspension I will forever be suspicious, but will also try to enjoy the game of baseball without turning into an angry curmudgeon.
The question for those who cheer the team on — because they can’t make the final decision — is not whether Peralta should play again.
The question is what kind of fan do you want to be?
I want to be the kind of fan that enjoys baseball. I don't want to be the kind of fan who gets on his high horse and allows cheaters to take the fun out of the game. It's just a game.
“Fans don’t care about drugs, they care about wins.” That’s the common refrain.
It's a refrain that shows how tired of discussing PED's fans are. They are tired of writers getting on their high horse about PED's and tired of baseball players getting caught using PED's. It's gotten old quickly.
You heard it again Monday, after the latest deluge of bad baseball news. Thirteen major league players were suspended, most for 50 games, for their involvement with performance-enhancing drugs in the Biogenesis scandal.
And yet, baseball has managed to carry on while the fans of baseball throw their morality out the door by simply not caring as much anymore that a player used PED's. There's only so much outrage the fans can stand before they just want to watch baseball again. I personally have reached that point. It's not that I don't care, because I do, it's just I can only muster so much phony outrage and shock that a MLB player would use PED's to gain an advantage.
One of those players was Tigers shortstop Jhonny Peralta — who once claimed anyone who said he used PEDs was “lying.”
He will be out of baseball until late September.
Perhaps fans are too jaded now. I don't obviously speak for all fans, but I find it hilarious that somehow sportswriters are able to act shocked that a baseball player would lie about his use of steroids. Who would have ever thought a player would lie about using PED's? It's almost moronic to even ask an MLB player if he uses or has used PED's because either way the answer will be "no." These sportswriters are screaming into a void at this point. No one likes the use of PED's in baseball, but many fans have come to accept it as a current state of the game and one big reason why the players are drug tested.
Of course, trying to take away Mitch Albom's moral outrage is nearly impossible. He makes a living off being morally outraged and writing columns that lie about whether two Michigan State players atten---I mean---writing columns about how baseball players are cheaters, and dammit, why don't we care as much as he does?
“What are the Tigers going to do?” you heard certain Detroit fans say. “How do they replace his bat? What will this do to their chances? Will he be back in time for the playoffs?”
They traded for Jose Iglesias. They won't replace his bat. This may or may not hurt their chances. Yes, he could be back for the playoffs.
You didn’t hear these fans lamenting the ethics of juicing your body — in flagrant violation of the rules.
Right, because we have had this conversation countless times before. It's old. Players cheat, there are measures to prevent cheating and they may/may not work. I am exhausted of talking about PED's. I want to watch and talk about baseball, not talk about the physiological changes that PED's can provide to a player's body, reaction time, or pitch speed.
You didn’t hear them decry the example it sets for kids.
Because worrying about "the kids" seems silly. Baseball players are role models, but decrying the example set for kids is something a person like Mitch Albom would worry about. "What about the kids?" is an irritating mantra. I don't think Mitch understands that many fans care about steroids but really, really, really want to move past the fact MLB players use PED's. This is as opposed to sportswriters who have terrible short-term memories and act like the next time a player gets busted for violating MLB's drug policy is the first time a player has ever violated the MLB drug policy. Let me let Mitch in on a secret:
There is an MLB player RIGHT NOW using PED's and he has gotten caught yet. The kids don't even know this and this player is walking around setting a terrible example. I've accepted this is true, while Mitch still tries to muster up some outrage. In fact, I think Mitch would rather talk about PED's than talk about baseball.
You didn’t hear them say “cheating undermines winning.”
Partially because it is almost impossible to know which players on which teams are cheating, so cheating may undermine winning, unless a player on the opposing team is also cheating, in which case both teams are cheating and undermining winning. At that point, my brain explodes and I want to quit talking about PED's.
This portion of the fan base cares only about the Tigers and how far the Tigers can go.
To an extent, yes. What else would you like for the Tigers fan base to care about? Boycott the games because there are immoral players who cheat? Are Tigers fans supposed to say, "I like sports for the entertainment aspect of it and the Tigers are my favorite team, but I would rather the Tigers lose than ever have a single cheater on their roster." Sports fans are fans because they love the sport and many fans know they have to ignore some of the negative aspects of sports to enjoy sports overall.
In which case, we offer the name Nelson Cruz.
Maybe you remember him. Two years ago, Cruz was the single biggest reason the Tigers didn’t get to a World Series. In the American League Championship Series, the Texas outfielder hit six home runs in six games, plus two doubles and 13 RBIs. Think about that. Thirteen RBIs in six games? That’s a two-run cushion in every game — thanks to one player!
That's crazy! Nelson Cruz was cheating and helped the Rangers make it to the World Series. How unforeseen!
Remember that time Johnny Peralta hit .389/.421/.778 against the Yankees in the 2012 ALCS? He hit two home runs and had seven hits in four games. That's almost two hits in every game! Looks like the Yankees got hurt by a cheater.
Now let's go to the Yankees team and see if the Angels remember A-Rod hitting three home runs and having six RBI in six games during the 2009 ALCS. That's a one-run cushion every game! Can't believe the Angels got hurt by a cheater.
So what about the 2002 Giants team? They had Francisco Rodriguez of the Angels pitching against them in the World Series and he has a history of abusing women. Rodriguez pitched 8.2 innings against the Giants and had 13 strikeouts over those innings in helping the Angels win the World Series. Yet, the Giants got burned by a guy who is a terrible person. What about the kids? Kids can't look up to Francisco Rodriguez. So the Giants got burned by a terrible person.
Then you think about the St. Louis Cardinals and Atlanta Braves, both teams who lost to the 2002 Giants in the playoffs, while the Giants had Barry Bonds on the team. He's a cheater. Both the Cardinals and Braves got burned by a cheater. How is that fair?
I think you see where I am going with this. You bring up one player on Team A that cheated and burned Team B by cheating, then you could also bring up a player from Team B that cheated and burned Team C.
Cruz won MVP of that series, and left Tiger fans in stunned disappointment. Only now we learn he was involved with PEDs — and will sit out the next 50 games. What if PEDs had been the difference in his performance?
What if PED's had been the difference in Johnny Peralta's performance in the 2012 ALCS? See, Mitch Albom doesn't think about this because he's too busy trying to appeal to the sense of loss and anger that Tiger fans must feel in getting beaten by a guy who was later found to have been using PED's. He doesn't think that Johnny Peralta could have screwed over the Yankees by using PED's against them in last year's ALCS.
Might the Tigers have been denied a World Series at least partly because of something illegal in somebody’s bloodstream?
If so, Detroit fans, would you care then?
Maybe, but then Tigers fans could look at their team and wonder if a player helped Detroit win a series while having something illegal in his bloodstream. I don't speak for Tigers fans, but I don't think it is a case of them not caring. They are just tired of hearing about PED's. Peralta will serve his suspension and we will all move on.
Now, I have no idea whether Cruz was using PEDs at that time, no idea whether they worked or didn’t.
It seems like you do have a pretty good idea whether Cruz was using PED's at that time because you are strongly hinting the Tigers were denied a World Series due to Cruz's hot hitting in the American League Championship Series.
He told the media Monday he took them only for a stomach disorder at the start of the 2012 season. But earlier this year he “denied” ever using such products.
I think Cruz's story was that he didn't know the substance was on the banned list and had used it for his stomach. Who knows what to believe, which is why I just assume Cruz is lying, and this helps me sleep okay at night.
That’s the problem. Once an athlete uses PEDs and another doesn’t, you have no fair comparison, and the truth becomes like a sinker pitch.
Yes, like a "sinker pitch." Then we find out the player isn't lying which is like a "curveball pitch."
Could Mitch sound more awkward in talking about a pitcher's pitch repertoire?
Peralta admitted in a prepared statement Monday that “in spring of 2012, I made a terrible mistake that I deeply regret.” The timing is odd, since in the spring of 2012 he was coming off his best season, in which he hit .299. And for the 2012 season, he had a tepid year at the plate.
It's almost like these PED's that Mitch is freaking out about and lecturing fans to really be concerned about may not just automatically make a baseball player turn into Babe Ruth. It's so weird for Mitch when his preconceived notions turn out to be false. He thought all baseball player turned into Babe Ruth when they took PED's, but how does that explain Johnny Peralta using PED's and not having a great year. Hmm...
Then again, this is the same guy who said in a February statement: “I have never used performance-enhancing drugs. Period. Anybody who says otherwise is lying.“
Apparently, he was the one lying. And so we must also question anything he says about his substance use.
Exactly. It's like a writer who lies about whether he saw two athletes a sporting event and publishes a story regarding these athletes being at this very sporting event. Then these players publicly state they never attended this sporting event. We never know when this sportswriter is lying, so we should just ignore him completely. Boy, this is awkward.
He might have injected human growth hormone or might have thrown the stuff in the garbage.
Who knows?
I'm guessing if Peralta bought it, he used it. Though this does bring up a good point about how it would have been nice for baseball to at least have a positive drug test to suspend Peralta, but I guess that ship has sailed.
But we do know this. You need to care. Unless you see no difference between baseball and professional wrestling, you need to care. You need to be concerned that fairness is preserved.
Thanks Dad. Fans need to care about the PED's that Mitch Albom isn't entirely sure Peralta took and isn't entirely sure made Peralta a better baseball player. We must be very concerned. After all, sports are about vigilance and not about being entertained. It's not like any other sport could ever have a PED problem and it's not like fans are annoyed at how PED's are sucking the fun out of the game so many have chosen to just ignore them and let the cheaters suffer a suspension.
Otherwise, there is no game. There’s just the needle and the damage done.
That's a Neil Young song quote! Keep on rocking in the free world baseball players! Keep using PED's and it won't hurt, because only love can break your heart.
Now, this is not just about the fans.
Except we are all assholes for not all being super-concerned like Mitch is super-concerned.
Just as certain fans would rather not know, plenty of teams were just as happy to look the other way.
The commissioner, Bud Selig, was once too slow on the PED draw. He’s gotten a little quicker. But thanks to the players union contract, even Monday’s suspensions allow most of the players to get back on the field before the season ends and be available if their team needs them for the playoffs.
Damn MLB for giving these PED users the suspension limit that was agreed to in the Collective Bargaining Agreement and not trying to unilaterally increase the suspension in violation of the CBA. Those owners are always trying to stick to the rules they have agreed to.
Will the Tigers activate Peralta when his suspension is up? My guess is absolutely — if they need him and think he’ll be effective.
The Giants didn't allow Melky Cabrera to come back last year, so there is a precedent that teams don't allow player suspended for PED use to come back and play in the postseason. So who really knows? Maybe Mitch Albom can write a story about how he sat in the stands with Johnny Peralta during the playoffs and it turns out Peralta was actually playing shortstop for the Tigers at the time Albom claims he was sitting with Peralta.
The Tigers used him right through Sunday afternoon — even after trading for his replacement — knowing full well his suspension was coming.
If the Tigers had a moral stance, they wouldn’t have done that.
The Tigers organization is immoral, obviously. How dare they try to win a baseball game prior to Johnny Peralta being suspended. They should have benched him or immediately traded him.
Even Tigers previously harsh on the PED question were telling media members Monday that Peralta just made “a mistake.” That’s what teammates and front offices do to a valued member of their lineup. And if the Tigers activate him and he plays well, Peralta may earn himself a fatter free-agent deal when he becomes eligible in the off-season
Damn the free market that allows teams to pay what they choose to pay for a free agent. Also, a player's teammates will rarely throw one of their teammates under the bus. I know Mitch wouldn't understand how sports works, but usually teammates try to stick by each other and not create a clubhouse issue where there isn't one.
Hey, it worked for San Francisco’s Melky Cabrera, who was suspended 50 games last year for actually failing a drug test and still signed a two-year free-agent deal for more money with another team.
To be fair, Cabrera was in line for a much bigger and longer contract prior to being busted for using PED's and he didn't receive as big of a deal as he could have gotten prior to his suspension.
That leaves you. What are yours? Are you in the group that doesn’t want cheaters in the game? Or the group that says as long as the guy wears your city on his chest everything is forgivable?
I say if one of my favorite players tests positive for PED's I will be disappointed in him and probably be suspicious of any great numbers he puts up in the future. Once that player serves his suspension I will forgive him and continue to cheer for him because he plays for my favorite team. Hey, I cheered for Gary Sheffield and J.D. Drew at certain points in my life so all that matters to me is the name on the chest in nearly every situation. I'm sorry this makes Mitch Albom sad, but once a player serves his suspension I will forever be suspicious, but will also try to enjoy the game of baseball without turning into an angry curmudgeon.
The question for those who cheer the team on — because they can’t make the final decision — is not whether Peralta should play again.
The question is what kind of fan do you want to be?
I want to be the kind of fan that enjoys baseball. I don't want to be the kind of fan who gets on his high horse and allows cheaters to take the fun out of the game. It's just a game.
Tuesday, October 1, 2013
12 comments MMQB Review: Clearly the Broncos Have Won the Super Bowl Edition
Last week in MMQB Peter King commented on how crazy and unexpected this NFL season had been. Of course I feel like he writes this every year, but this year Peter was surprised that the all the teams he thought would be good aren't good and some teams he didn't think would be any good are good. Peter has been suspiciously silent about Tavon Austin and Jared Cook since Week 1 of the NFL season, but I'm sure once those guys have a good week Peter will be sure to remind us of what great players they are. This week Peter talks about Peyton Manning (Peter knows we have had enough of Manning, but he's basically not going to stop writing about him because it's not about what the readers want to read, it's about what Peter wants to write), discusses the Hall of Fame voting process that Peter takes great pains to spell out every...single...year...at least twice a year, and regales us with a story about how he almost got hit by a motorcade. No word on whether the motorcade was aiming for him or not.
Ninety minutes after the 52-20 victory over Denver, I told one of the four musketeers Manning uses as his weapons, wide receiver Eric Decker, about the no-third-down thing. He paused for three or four seconds, taking it in, then said: “That is crazy. Crazy. But our mentality is to convert everything. First down, second down, first down, touchdown.’’
I hear this on Twitter and email all the time: Enough of Peyton Manning! Not today.
Sunday was Manning’s 228th regular season game, and would you believe me if I told you that, at an age two years past when Terry Bradshaw retired, he has in the midst of the best playing stretch of his career?
“I’ll tell you what’s scary,’’ said Tony Dungy, Manning’s coach in that 2004 season, in the NBC Football Night in America green room Sunday night. “Peyton will be better in November. He’s still getting used to his receivers, I can tell you, the longer he works with guys, the better they’ll all be.’’
Dungy disagreed with me about this Sunday night, but I think one factor in Manning’s favor is having Thomas, Thomas, Welker and Decker together as his receiving weapons.
In Indianapolis he usually had three big ones together: Marvin Harrison, Reggie Wayne and either Brandon Stokley or Dallas Clark.
What’s next? The Cowboys, at Dallas. Manning’s onto the Dallas defense, with Cover 2 coordinator Monte Kiffin this week’s challenge. Cover 2: The Indianapolis defense favored by his old coach. Dungy was smiling Sunday night at the thought of it. “Peyton only practiced against that defense every day with us for years,’’ said Dungy.
I don’t care what they say: The Houston Texans have to be having grave doubts about quarterback Matt Schaub’s ability to win a Super Bowl. That’s three straight games with Schaub throwing a pick-6
It is ridiculously early.
Peter writes, "Looking ahead to the 9-0 Bowl" as a heading and then the first thing he writes after this is "It is ridiculously early." Apparently it isn't ridiculously early to just assume the Broncos and the Chiefs are going to win their next five games in order to look forward to the first matchup this season between these two teams.
But in seven weeks, on Nov. 17, there could be a beautiful game in Denver: The 9-0 Broncos hosting 9-0 Kansas City.
It's fun to look forward to this game, but it has always irritated me a little bit how Peter likes to throw caveats like "It's too early to say..." followed by him speculating as if it weren't too early to say. What about the 16-0 Super Bowl? It's Seattle versus the Broncos. Is it too early to look ahead to that game?
And two weeks after that, a beautiful rematch at Arrowhead Stadum.
I love Arrowhead Stadum. It's almost as nice as Arrowhead Stadium.
I'm just sad we can't call the rematch the "11-0 Bowl."
Postscript: Denver travels to New England in Week 12. Imagine Denver playing a 9-0 bowl against Kansas City one week, then a 10-0 bowl against the Patriots the next.
It's ridiculously early, but I just circled my calendar for the 9-0 and 10-0 bowl, while fully expecting them to occur.
Funny thing. Lots of NFL things that look so intriguing in September usually get blown up in October.
Oh Peter, you are saying it is ridiculously early to look ahead to the first Kansas City-Denver matchup, then looking ahead to this matchup, and then saying the fact this game looks intriguing now doesn't mean it will be intriguing in November. It's very confusing.
It's almost like Peter is reaching for things to discuss in MMQB this week. If Peter cut MMQB down to a two-page column and only discussed important NFL-related matters I probably wouldn't be able to write MMQB Review every week. Peter has gotten MMQB bloated over the years.
I asked Andy Benoit, our Deep Dive maestro, to give me his All-Pro team through four weeks, based on the extensive tape work Benoit does each week. Here are his picks and explanations:
Here is a great example of MMQB being bloated. As opposed to an entirely separate column about Andy Benoit's All-Pro team with full explanations based on his extensive tape work, Peter has Benoit add this information to pad a half-page of MMQB and make this a five page column as opposed to the four page column it probably should be. I would think Benoit's All-Pro team and the results of his extensive tape work deserves more than just a half-page mention in someone else's column.
Though I do question some of Benoit's reasoning since I'm not entirely sure each player's selection to this team was based on extensive tape work.
Forte gets the nod over LeSean McCoy because Forte’s 3-1 Bears would not be transitioning to Marc Trestman’s system so smoothly if not for the stabilizing ground game and potent underneath receiving that the sixth-year veteran provides. If the Eagles didn’t have McCoy they’d still be 1-3.
Oh, so McCoy isn't playing as well because his team isn't playing as well around him? I'm not sure basing an individual award on a team result is the best example of research done by watching film.
Pouncey gets the nod purely on athletic merit.
Okay, I would love to know who the other finalists for the All-Pro center of the 25% mark of the season, since Pouncey gets it because he is the most athletic.
So is Haden; he blanketed Mike Wallace in Week 1, often without true safety help. In Week 3, Haden was airtight on Jerome Simpson.
I don't have a problem with Haden being on this list as an All-Pro of the first 25% of the season, but I think it is great that the fact he shut down Jerome Simpson is a part of his resume. I would expect that from a quality #2 corner and he would have a major problem if one of the two best corners in the NFL couldn't shut Simpson down completely. It's Jerome Simpson, he of the 116 receptions over five seasons and 7 career touchdown catches.
I’ve said for a long time that the wide receiver logjam, particularly with five or six more receivers likely to cross the 1,000-catch plateau in the next five years, is going to be the most vexing problem for the 46 Pro Football Hall of Fame voters in the next few years. Marvin Harrison (1,102 catches) hits the ballot this year. Do voters put him in right away because of his importance to the Colts’ long run of excellence?
I'm not sure Marvin Harrison should be moved ahead of other wide receivers for induction into the Hall of Fame simply because he played on a good team.
Do they stack him behind Andre Reed and Tim Brown, who have been waiting nine and five years respectively?
If excellence of the team around him is a real issue that could get Marvin Harrison into the Hall of Fame, then Andre Reed deserves to be inducted before Harrison.
Do they wait to see if Reggie Wayne, 34, who wants to play multiple more years and is only 117 catches behind Harrison this morning, passes him, and by how much?
Marvin Harrison should be able to make the Hall of Fame on his own merits. I'm not sure if how Reggie Wayne plays over the next couple of years should have anything to do with whether Marvin Harrison makes the Hall of Fame or not.
Then Peter advocates for Tony Dungy to make the Hall of Fame because he is a pioneer and many African-American coaches credit Dungy with their career progression. I think I could be a little more warm towards this idea if I didn't think Peter pushes for Dungy so hard simply because he works with Dungy at NBC. We all know Peter throws out disclaimers about his relationship to certain coaches/teams/players, but this disclaimer is basically Peter warning us that he has no real neutrality when it comes to discussing this coach/team/player more than anything else.
But my interpretation will be that the pioneer aspect of the job should matter. Inspiring, encouraging and being a role model for African-American coaches (and, quite frankly, coaches in general and football coaches in particular) is part of Dungy’s contribution to the game, and I will speak up about that subject in the Hall of Fame selection meeting on Feb. 1 in New York. Being around Dungy quite a bit in recent years, and talking to coaches about him, I’ve always gotten the feeling he’s one of the most important coaches of this era, for many reasons.
He very well may be one of the most important coaches of the era. I'm not sure if bases solely on coaching exploits he should be in the Hall of Fame. I am sure Peter is going to make a very good case for Dungy and I have no doubt Dungy eventually makes it into the Hall of Fame.
A word about one other coaching candidate: Jimmy Johnson.
Johnson coached nine years, which most people have said is too short a career to merit entry into the Hall. It bothers me, too. But Sayers played just 68 games over seven injury-plagued seasons. He got in because he was a meteor across the NFL sky—a transcendent talent who retired with a 5.0 yards-per-carry average and an NFL-record 30.6-yard career kick-return average, and who once scored six touchdowns in a 1965 game against San Francisco. He had some Adrian Peterson and some Barry Sanders in him.
I don't know about the Gale Sayers-Jimmy Johnson comparison. Johnson was 80-64 during his NFL career and I realize he won two Super Bowls, but I'm not sure that's enough to get him into the Hall of Fame. Wade Phillips is 82-59 for his career, Brian Billick is 80-64, Lovie Smith is 81-63, and George Seifert is 114-62 for his NFL coaching career. My point, is that unless the Super Bowl victories weigh very heavily (and I'm fine with that, while also acknowledging Seifert and Billick have won a Super Bowl) then Jimmy Johnson should not be in the Hall of Fame. Seifert would have to make it, right? He has 32 more victories than Johnson and won one fewer Super Bowl.
Of course Jimmy Johnson did create the draft trade value chart, so maybe he's a coach who had a significant impact on the game like Tony Dungy.
Did any coach have a quicker impact on the game in recent history than Johnson, both in winning and in trends? He came into the league with a bad Dallas team in 1989 and was determined to do it his way—from stocking his defense with smaller, faster players instead of bigger ones, to bringing the Cover 2 from the University of Miami,
Good thing he never had to play Peyton Manning while running the Cover 2 in Dallas. Manning practiced against that defense everyday in practice while playing with the Colts and very obviously would destroy any Cover 2 defense an opposing team throws at him.
to working the draft the way he recruited players at Miami—scouting the college teams’ postseason with his coaching staff instead of leaving it all to the scouts. He coached two Super Bowl winners in five seasons, then left a Super Bowl team behind and went on to make three playoff appearances in four seasons in Miami.
I don't think Jimmy Johnson was a bad coach, but I'm just not sure he is a Hall of Fame coach. I realize he had a terrible Cowboys team in the beginning, but his career winning percentage is below Brian Billick, Wade Phillips, Lovie Smith, and Mike Sherman. Obviously his two Super Bowl victories and how he turned the Cowboys around is impressive, but I don't think it is just the length of time he coached that holds him back from making the Super Bowl. He wasn't outstanding as a head coach except for three years in Dallas. That doesn't merit entry into the Hall of Fame in my opinion.
Though I believe Johnson is a strong candidate, he probably will never make the Hall. Most will say he needed to win more than 89 games as an NFL coach, and it’s a valid criticism. I just think there are some coaches, and players, who were so impactful over a short period that they deserve an airing in front of the 46 people who guard the door to the Hall of Fame.
I know Cowboys fans will probably disagree, but while Johnson was impactful over a short period of time, it was a pretty short period of time and I'm not sure that merits Hall of Fame consideration. His record in Miami is simply okay and not especially outstanding (though not really ironically, he had a better winning percentage in Miami than he did in Dallas).
Fine Fifteen
NFL teams placed randomly in supposed order of strength.
5. Indianapolis (3-1). Going West Coast/East Coast (Niners/Jags) was supposed to be harder than this: Colts 64, Foes 10.
It does help that the East Coast team is the Jacksonville Jaguars.
7. San Francisco (2-2). So … the nosetackle (Ian Williams) is lost in Week 2 with a broken ankle, and the best pass rusher (Aldon Smith) and multi-Pro Bowl inside linebacker (Patrick Willis) miss a road game on a short week against a Rams team with a fortified offense, and the Niners hold St. Louis to 188 yards and 11 points in a 35-11 rout. That’s some good depth right there, and some realization of the urgency of the day.
Or this could be a reflection on what kind of team the Rams are. Tavon Austin has 20 receptions for 124 yards by the way. Peter reported earlier this summer that Cortland Finnegan had trouble covering Austin in practice. Maybe the fact Cortland Finnegan couldn't cover Austin in practice is more of a reflection on Finnegan than Austin. Also, since Week 1 Jared Cook has 10 receptions for 99 yards. Not that I'm saying Cook stinks, but Peter had been talking up this Rams team for most of the summer. Reality may have set in.
15. Houston (2-2). Texans-Niners at Candlestick Sunday night. Combined record: 4-4.
I always enjoy how Peter seems surprised that every expected record for each NFL team doesn't turn into reality as the season wears on. If the NFL season played out exactly how it was supposed to play out on paper then it would be pretty boring, no? Who could ever believe the Texans and Niners are 4-4? The season must be over for both teams.
Coach of the Week
Rob Chudzinski, head coach, Cleveland. “You’re 2-0 since you gave up on the season,’’ I told Chudzinski Sunday night. He said: “Good thing nobody told that to our players.” Chudzinski may have some guys on his team looking at the brass cross-eyed for trading Trent Richardson after two weeks, but it’s a tribute to Chudzinski that the players are playing as hard as any group in the league.
Chudzinski has been the head coach for four games. I would be very surprised if the Browns team gave up on him and started tuning him out after four games, even if Trent Richardson got traded. Four games would have to be a record for an NFL team to give up on their coach.
Goat of the Week
Joe Flacco, QB, Baltimore. He threw five interceptions at Buffalo, leading to 13 Buffalo points, and the Ravens lost by three. Not good.
Obviously if Flacco still had Anquan Boldin as one of his wide receivers he never would have thrown five interceptions.
Never has a precocious, well-regarded phenom of a football coach seen his career go up in flames in seven years the way Lane Kiffin has.
This is the first use of "precocious" by Peter King in a few weeks now. It's so precocious of him to use it in reference to Lane Kiffin.
Head-coaching record: 40-35. Career postseason or bowl wins: zero.
Kiffin seems especially good at failing upwards so I have no doubt he will end up with a head coaching job very soon. Most likely he will get the University of Texas job if Mack Brown gets fired after this season. I'm assuming he will bring his "failing upwards" buddy Todd Haley with him to run the offense.
Mr. Starwood Preferred Member Travel Note of the Week
Since moving to the East Side of Manhattan a couple of years ago, United Nations Week (the early-fall week when the General Assembly is in session, and the most famous politicians in the world flood into the east side of the city) has been a revelation.
Peter is shocked that world leaders have tight security with them when traveling abroad.
So: As a two-year resident of Manhattan, I’ve gotten used to walking when the walk signs say walk, and most other times, staying out of the street. It’s for my own good; stories of pedestrians getting plowed over by cabs and cars pop up daily. On Wednesday, I was trying to cross Second Avenue 10 blocks north of the U.N., I saw the white “walk’’ sign lit, and I took a couple of steps into the street.
“SIRSIRSIR!!!!” yelled a cop about 10 feet away from me, and I looked up, and here was a motorcade with a New York City cop car driving maybe 30 miles an hour being waved through the intersection …
Whoa!
I would be willing to bet $100 that Peter was texting or doing something else instead of paying attention while stepping out into the street. Otherwise, doesn't it make sense he would see a freaking motorcade coming? Of course, if Peter was texting he leaves that part out because it makes him look bad. Peter had to have been distracted by something or else I can't imagine he wouldn't have seen the motorcade coming.
So I jumped back onto the sidewalk. It wasn’t that close, really. But as I stood there and the motorcade got waved through, I saw three black Escalades following very, very close to the police car (which didn’t have a siren on). In the third vehicle, the window of the driver’s-side passenger door was down, and a man in what appeared to be brown military fatigues with two hands on some sort of machine gun was inside.
Peter then pulled out his notebook and tried to write down the entire conversation going on in the limo, but unfortunately he was too far away to transcribe the entire conversation. It's a shame, but also very precocious of Peter.
Nice to have the city back this morning.
Yeah, get out of the city you smelly foreigners so that Peter can get back to texting and not paying attention to where he is walking.
1. I think this is what I liked about Week 4:
a. Brian Hoyer. Outplayed Andy Dalton. Nothing fluky about the 17-6 Cleveland win. That job is Hoyer’s until further notice, maybe until draft day.
Apparently "until further notice" means "until we can find a better quarterback."
g. Pat Haden’s decisiveness.
This is a joke, right? USC starts last season off as the #1 overall team in the country, then ended up playing in the Sun Bowl where the team gets into a fight with each other after the game. Kiffin showed (to me at least) he should have been fired PRIOR to this current season, but Peter lauds Haden's decisiveness? Haden could have fired Kiffin last January and not wasted an entire season with an interim head coach, but he waited until five games into the new college football season, wastes a year of his player's eligibility on an interim coach and sets the table for commits to USC to waver since there probably won't be a replacement named for another three months...yet Peter thinks Haden was decisive. Okay.
j. The insight of Austen Lane. In his writing for The MMQB, did you notice his difference in being cut by the Jags and being cut by the Chiefs? in Jacksonville, the coach and GM met with him, then the coach met with him individually. In Kansas City, the pro personnel guy met with him. That’s it.
Peter King really wants to help Austen Lane find a job in the NFL or as a writer. Peter mentioned Lane once before in this MMQB and has mentioned him repeatedly in MMQB's since he got cut by both teams. Watch out Austen, Peter also tried to get Chris Kluwe a job and he's still looking for permanent NFL work.
2. I think this is what I didn’t like about Week 4:
a. The games at Wembley have this one TV problem: Not enough lights in the stadium. Every one of those games looks dark.
I didn't really notice it was too dark. It was darker than a usual NFL indoor stadium, but I didn't think the game looked overly dark.
i. When Geno Smith is bad, he’s really bad. Wouldn’t be surprised to see Rex Ryan consider playing Matt Simms.
Because I'm sure Matt Simms will be able to fix everything for the Jets. Geno Smith is bad, but he is also a rookie and probably not ready to be a starting quarterback in the NFL. Either way, the fact Geno Smith is playing really bad at times should not be shocking. I was surprised when Smith didn't play terribly over the first couple of games. He's not exactly built to succeed as the quarterback for the Jets.
j. Re the Rashad Johnson lost-fingertip coverage: He lost half an inch of a fingertip. Nobody wants to lose a centimeter of a body part, obviously. But the coverage was a bit over the top. Excessive.
Wow, the coverage of an NFL player losing a finger is a bit over the top to Peter. This is the first MMQB he hasn't mentioned Tim Tebow all season by the way, and Tebow was released by the Patriots a month ago. I think the coverage of Johnson's lost fingertip was over the top for a reason. Who loses part of a finger and then doesn't realize it until he takes his gloves off?
I say this fully believing it...if Brett Favre had lost a fingertip while playing then I feel like I could guarantee Peter King would have pictures of the missing fingertip and an entire section of MMQB devoted to quotes from Favre about losing his finger, while marveling at just how incredibly tough Brett Favre is. I doubt Peter would have felt the coverage of Favre's missing finger was over the top if other sportswriters joined in marveling at Favre's toughness.
k. I’m not saying Tampa Bay is good. But I am saying the Bucs have lost three games in the most ridiculous manner, including blowing a late 10-0 lead to Arizona Sunday.
If almost-wins meant a team was on the right track then the Carolina Panthers should be Super Bowl contenders at this point. Blowing leads in a ridiculous manner sometimes means something is seriously wrong with a team that allows them to grab defeat from the jaws of victory.
5. I think the Bucs need to cut Josh Freeman. Today.
Then point #6 is also about Josh Freeman. I am not sure Peter understands how an outline works. Each number is supposed to represent an individual topic that he will discuss. Making #5 and #6 about the same topic, with #6 being an elaboration on the same topic as #5 goes against the entire objective of an outline. Peter should elaborate about point #5 in point #5 using the information he ended up writing in point #6, yet sometimes Peter doesn't do this. This has always frustrated me a little bit for some reason.
6. I think these things are always tricky.
Point #5 says the Buccaneers need to cut Josh Freeman today and point #6 says it is tricky. Apparently it isn't tricky enough of a situation for Peter to make a definitive statement on what he thinks the Buccaneers should do.
They’re in a poisonous relationship with Freeman. They owe him $6.4 million, guaranteed, for the final three months of a lost season, and every day he spends on campus with the team is an ugly one. It’d be one thing if there were a team out there dying to trade for him. I was in touch with the Jags and Browns on Sunday about their prospective interest...Each team told me the same thing: No interest.
If these two teams did have interest in Freeman, would they say, "Hell yes, we are interested in Josh Freeman! I'm glad you asked Peter, we are desperate to acquire him!"?
I doubt that would happen. So while I believe the Jaguars and Browns aren't interested in Freeman, I also wouldn't expect them to state they are interested because it would reduce some of their bargaining power if the Buccaneers come calling with a trade offer. Peter has to understand this, right? NFL teams will lie and misstate their interest in a player in order to keep their bargaining power when attempting to acquire a player.
The Bucs should give Greg Schiano a chance to save his job and save the 2013 season, and the only way to do that is to cut Freeman loose now.
Or the Buccaneers could stop releasing Freeman's medical information (unless they weren't the ones who released Freeman's medical information, though I'm not sure who could have been responsible in that case) and provide the public with knowledge that Freeman is in Stage 1 of the drug program. I'm not sure why Schiano deserves a chance to save his job personally, especially with the way this Freeman situation has been handled.
7. I think it’s too late now, but Freeman should have stood his ground, worked his way back to the job and showed future employers he can fight back from adversity. What he looks like now, to the other 31 teams in the league, is a guy who had trouble with a coaching staff, played poorly, overslept for the team photo (if that’s a true story) and started whining when he got yanked. What team is going to pay good money for a 53 percent passer (since the start of 2012) who goes renegade on a team when times are tough?
It seems the smearing of Josh Freeman has worked to convince Peter King that Freeman is the real problem in this situation and not the Buccaneers coaching staff. It's nearly impossible to know who is really the bad guy in this situation, if there is even a bad guy, but Freeman is 25 years old and has 25+ touchdown passes twice. He's been bad lately, but I don't think it isn't anything some good coaching couldn't help turn around.
10. I think these are my non-football thoughts of the week:
c. Loved The Lyman Bostock Story, about the Angels outfielder shot to death while in the wrong place at the wrong time in Gary, Ind., late in the 1978 season. Congrats on a job well done, Bruce Cornblatt.
It's so exciting when a tragic death is played out in dramatic fashion. Maybe Chuck Pagano can use this tragedy to motivate his Colts players!
d. Kudos, too, to Rory Karpf, for his revealing Book of Manning documentary. Most of us never knew about the tortured life of Archie Manning’s dad, and it was a story artfully told.
Because the one thing I know I want to see more of during football season is attention paid to the Manning family. It's bad enough I can barely get away from them during commercial breaks, but to have to watch an entire documentary on the family (no matter how well done), no thanks.
f. Sorry. I can’t demonize the retiring Andy Pettitte forever for his one detour into PEDs. I can castigate him for it, and I can always think of it when I think of him. (If it was more than that, I will stand corrected.) But I don’t think of him as a consistent PED user.
It's always fun to hear baseball fans try to differentiate between someone who has used PED's and a "consistent PED user" to explain why different players get treated differently for using PED's. The bottom line is that Peter wants to treat different players in a different way, so he differentiates between "consistent" PED user and a one-time PED user as if we know for sure a player fits into one category or another. Pettitte seemed really, really sorry and A-Rod doesn't, plus Peter wants to forgive Pettitte but doesn't want to forgive A-Rod. There's the real difference.
g. Coffeenerdness: Nobody likes a coffee nerd, and so when I started to tell the barista at Starbucks the other day that she was making the macchiato wrong (espresso on the bottom of the cup, with milk on top, which it shouldn’t be), I caught myself and shut up.
Nobody likes it when another person tells them how to do their job, so Peter wouldn't have come off as a coffee nerd, but would have come off as an asshole.
j. My World Series guess: Oakland over St. Louis in seven.
Oh good, then the media can find Tony LaRussa and find out which team he is pulling for to win the series.
The Adieu Haiku
Chip’s balloon has burst.
What a difference a month makes.
DeSean: Play DeD.
"What a difference a month makes"? I guess this is what Peter gets (and myself, since I picked the Eagles to win the NFC East) for assuming that Chip Kelly is going to come into the NFL and immediately revolutionize everything about how NFL teams run their offense. Apparently NFL teams have to play defense too.
I'm probably stupid, but I don't know what "Desean: Play DeD" means. It does feel like a dumb way to end the already dumb use of a haiku.
On Manning’s final four touchdown drives of the day against Philadelphia, Denver never ran a third-down play.
Denver had 12 second downs on the four drives. Manning converted all of them into first downs.
Eleven plays, 80 yards. Ten plays, 80 yards. Eight plays, 80 yards. Seven plays, 65 yards.
That’s 36 plays, 28 points, 305 yards. And no third downs.
You haven't made it clear yet, Peter. DID THE BRONCOS HAVE A THIRD DOWN ON THESE DRIVES?
Ninety minutes after the 52-20 victory over Denver, I told one of the four musketeers Manning uses as his weapons, wide receiver Eric Decker, about the no-third-down thing. He paused for three or four seconds, taking it in, then said: “That is crazy. Crazy. But our mentality is to convert everything. First down, second down, first down, touchdown.’’
Another pause. “I have to say, hearing that is really rewarding,’’ Decker said.
These aren't the type of quotes you can get just anywhere. That's why we read MMQB. Eric Decker feels rewarded that the Broncos didn't have to convert a third down. Who would have thunk it?
I hear this on Twitter and email all the time: Enough of Peyton Manning! Not today.
Or, you know, not enough of Peyton Manning today or any other week also. It's not like Tom Brady went into Atlanta and beat the Falcons with a bunch of no-names receivers or anything like that. Let's talk more about Peyton's loaded offense and what a great job he does of running it.
Sunday was Manning’s 228th regular season game, and would you believe me if I told you that, at an age two years past when Terry Bradshaw retired, he has in the midst of the best playing stretch of his career?
I would, because Terry Bradshaw's passing statistics are not even close to being on par with the statistics of a modern day quarterback.
“I’ll tell you what’s scary,’’ said Tony Dungy, Manning’s coach in that 2004 season, in the NBC Football Night in America green room Sunday night. “Peyton will be better in November. He’s still getting used to his receivers, I can tell you, the longer he works with guys, the better they’ll all be.’’
Right, because it's not like opposing defenses study film of the Broncos to find tendencies or anything like that. Statistically, it is hard for Peyton to be better than he is now, but logically, if Peyton got better every season the more he worked with then he may have more than one Super Bowl ring at this point in his career.
Dungy disagreed with me about this Sunday night, but I think one factor in Manning’s favor is having Thomas, Thomas, Welker and Decker together as his receiving weapons.
In Indianapolis he usually had three big ones together: Marvin Harrison, Reggie Wayne and either Brandon Stokley or Dallas Clark.
I'm not sure what is more shocking to me, that Peter thinks it isn't obvious one really, really big factor in Manning's favor is the amount of offensive weapons he has at his disposal, or that Tony Dungy doesn't believe having four offensive weapons is better than having three offensive weapons. The big factor in Manning's success is how well he works with the offensive players on the Broncos, and yes, having Wes Welker as a slot receiver with a tight end who can catch the ball is much better than having Brandon Stokley/Dallas Clark without a fourth receiving option.
“I think a big part of it is we all want to win for this guy,’’ said
Decker. “The line plays like, ‘Don’t let Peyton get hit.’ The receivers
are like, ‘Run that route exactly the way it should be run.’ It goes to
defense and special teams too. It’s a sign of unselfishness.
I get what Decker is saying here. I really do. So are there NFL teams that don't want to win games, offensive lines that play like, "Fuck it, let's let the QB get hit"? Are there receivers who intentionally don't run precise routes and defense and special teams that don't care? I'm wondering, because this seems an awful lot like hyperbole and the fact the Broncos are winning makes it seem like their players are being more unselfish and caring more than other NFL teams.
What’s next? The Cowboys, at Dallas. Manning’s onto the Dallas defense, with Cover 2 coordinator Monte Kiffin this week’s challenge. Cover 2: The Indianapolis defense favored by his old coach. Dungy was smiling Sunday night at the thought of it. “Peyton only practiced against that defense every day with us for years,’’ said Dungy.
And every Cover 2 defense is the exact same and the players in that Cover 2 defense make absolutely no difference, right?
I don’t care what they say: The Houston Texans have to be having grave doubts about quarterback Matt Schaub’s ability to win a Super Bowl. That’s three straight games with Schaub throwing a pick-6
It would have been nice for the Texans had a chance to know about their future grave doubts prior to giving Schaub a contract extension last season, though the fact the Texans can escape from Schaub's contract after this season probably helps.
In the span of three plays of the second half, the Patriots got key
plays from three players not on the team at this time last year—a
touchdown catch by Kenbrell Thompkins, an interception by Aqib Talib and
a 24-yard catch leading to a field goal by fourth-round rookie receiver
Josh Boyce. The longer Tom Brady can work with these guys, the better
New England will be
But Peyton Manning will always be better because he's had a chance to work with his receivers the longest. It also would help Brady and New England play better if they weren't fielding almost an entire receiving corps (excluding Julian Edelman) that are rookies or not quite ready to play at the high level that Brady needs them to play at.
My awards at the quarter pole: MVP and Offensive Player, Peyton Manning
(no kidding!); Defensive Player, Ndamukong Suh; Offensive and Defensive
Rookies, DeAndre Hopkins and Kiko Alonso; Coach, Bill Belichick …
At least Peter didn't separate the MVP and the Offensive Player of the Year award like he has a tendency to do.
Looking ahead to the 9-0 Bowl.
It is ridiculously early.
Peter writes, "Looking ahead to the 9-0 Bowl" as a heading and then the first thing he writes after this is "It is ridiculously early." Apparently it isn't ridiculously early to just assume the Broncos and the Chiefs are going to win their next five games in order to look forward to the first matchup this season between these two teams.
But in seven weeks, on Nov. 17, there could be a beautiful game in Denver: The 9-0 Broncos hosting 9-0 Kansas City.
It's fun to look forward to this game, but it has always irritated me a little bit how Peter likes to throw caveats like "It's too early to say..." followed by him speculating as if it weren't too early to say. What about the 16-0 Super Bowl? It's Seattle versus the Broncos. Is it too early to look ahead to that game?
And two weeks after that, a beautiful rematch at Arrowhead Stadum.
I love Arrowhead Stadum. It's almost as nice as Arrowhead Stadium.
I'm just sad we can't call the rematch the "11-0 Bowl."
Postscript: Denver travels to New England in Week 12. Imagine Denver playing a 9-0 bowl against Kansas City one week, then a 10-0 bowl against the Patriots the next.
It's ridiculously early, but I just circled my calendar for the 9-0 and 10-0 bowl, while fully expecting them to occur.
Funny thing. Lots of NFL things that look so intriguing in September usually get blown up in October.
Oh Peter, you are saying it is ridiculously early to look ahead to the first Kansas City-Denver matchup, then looking ahead to this matchup, and then saying the fact this game looks intriguing now doesn't mean it will be intriguing in November. It's very confusing.
It's almost like Peter is reaching for things to discuss in MMQB this week. If Peter cut MMQB down to a two-page column and only discussed important NFL-related matters I probably wouldn't be able to write MMQB Review every week. Peter has gotten MMQB bloated over the years.
I asked Andy Benoit, our Deep Dive maestro, to give me his All-Pro team through four weeks, based on the extensive tape work Benoit does each week. Here are his picks and explanations:
Here is a great example of MMQB being bloated. As opposed to an entirely separate column about Andy Benoit's All-Pro team with full explanations based on his extensive tape work, Peter has Benoit add this information to pad a half-page of MMQB and make this a five page column as opposed to the four page column it probably should be. I would think Benoit's All-Pro team and the results of his extensive tape work deserves more than just a half-page mention in someone else's column.
Though I do question some of Benoit's reasoning since I'm not entirely sure each player's selection to this team was based on extensive tape work.
Forte gets the nod over LeSean McCoy because Forte’s 3-1 Bears would not be transitioning to Marc Trestman’s system so smoothly if not for the stabilizing ground game and potent underneath receiving that the sixth-year veteran provides. If the Eagles didn’t have McCoy they’d still be 1-3.
Oh, so McCoy isn't playing as well because his team isn't playing as well around him? I'm not sure basing an individual award on a team result is the best example of research done by watching film.
Pouncey gets the nod purely on athletic merit.
Okay, I would love to know who the other finalists for the All-Pro center of the 25% mark of the season, since Pouncey gets it because he is the most athletic.
So is Haden; he blanketed Mike Wallace in Week 1, often without true safety help. In Week 3, Haden was airtight on Jerome Simpson.
I don't have a problem with Haden being on this list as an All-Pro of the first 25% of the season, but I think it is great that the fact he shut down Jerome Simpson is a part of his resume. I would expect that from a quality #2 corner and he would have a major problem if one of the two best corners in the NFL couldn't shut Simpson down completely. It's Jerome Simpson, he of the 116 receptions over five seasons and 7 career touchdown catches.
I’ve said for a long time that the wide receiver logjam, particularly with five or six more receivers likely to cross the 1,000-catch plateau in the next five years, is going to be the most vexing problem for the 46 Pro Football Hall of Fame voters in the next few years. Marvin Harrison (1,102 catches) hits the ballot this year. Do voters put him in right away because of his importance to the Colts’ long run of excellence?
I'm not sure Marvin Harrison should be moved ahead of other wide receivers for induction into the Hall of Fame simply because he played on a good team.
Do they stack him behind Andre Reed and Tim Brown, who have been waiting nine and five years respectively?
If excellence of the team around him is a real issue that could get Marvin Harrison into the Hall of Fame, then Andre Reed deserves to be inducted before Harrison.
Do they wait to see if Reggie Wayne, 34, who wants to play multiple more years and is only 117 catches behind Harrison this morning, passes him, and by how much?
Marvin Harrison should be able to make the Hall of Fame on his own merits. I'm not sure if how Reggie Wayne plays over the next couple of years should have anything to do with whether Marvin Harrison makes the Hall of Fame or not.
Then Peter advocates for Tony Dungy to make the Hall of Fame because he is a pioneer and many African-American coaches credit Dungy with their career progression. I think I could be a little more warm towards this idea if I didn't think Peter pushes for Dungy so hard simply because he works with Dungy at NBC. We all know Peter throws out disclaimers about his relationship to certain coaches/teams/players, but this disclaimer is basically Peter warning us that he has no real neutrality when it comes to discussing this coach/team/player more than anything else.
But my interpretation will be that the pioneer aspect of the job should matter. Inspiring, encouraging and being a role model for African-American coaches (and, quite frankly, coaches in general and football coaches in particular) is part of Dungy’s contribution to the game, and I will speak up about that subject in the Hall of Fame selection meeting on Feb. 1 in New York. Being around Dungy quite a bit in recent years, and talking to coaches about him, I’ve always gotten the feeling he’s one of the most important coaches of this era, for many reasons.
He very well may be one of the most important coaches of the era. I'm not sure if bases solely on coaching exploits he should be in the Hall of Fame. I am sure Peter is going to make a very good case for Dungy and I have no doubt Dungy eventually makes it into the Hall of Fame.
A word about one other coaching candidate: Jimmy Johnson.
Johnson coached nine years, which most people have said is too short a career to merit entry into the Hall. It bothers me, too. But Sayers played just 68 games over seven injury-plagued seasons. He got in because he was a meteor across the NFL sky—a transcendent talent who retired with a 5.0 yards-per-carry average and an NFL-record 30.6-yard career kick-return average, and who once scored six touchdowns in a 1965 game against San Francisco. He had some Adrian Peterson and some Barry Sanders in him.
I don't know about the Gale Sayers-Jimmy Johnson comparison. Johnson was 80-64 during his NFL career and I realize he won two Super Bowls, but I'm not sure that's enough to get him into the Hall of Fame. Wade Phillips is 82-59 for his career, Brian Billick is 80-64, Lovie Smith is 81-63, and George Seifert is 114-62 for his NFL coaching career. My point, is that unless the Super Bowl victories weigh very heavily (and I'm fine with that, while also acknowledging Seifert and Billick have won a Super Bowl) then Jimmy Johnson should not be in the Hall of Fame. Seifert would have to make it, right? He has 32 more victories than Johnson and won one fewer Super Bowl.
Of course Jimmy Johnson did create the draft trade value chart, so maybe he's a coach who had a significant impact on the game like Tony Dungy.
Did any coach have a quicker impact on the game in recent history than Johnson, both in winning and in trends? He came into the league with a bad Dallas team in 1989 and was determined to do it his way—from stocking his defense with smaller, faster players instead of bigger ones, to bringing the Cover 2 from the University of Miami,
Good thing he never had to play Peyton Manning while running the Cover 2 in Dallas. Manning practiced against that defense everyday in practice while playing with the Colts and very obviously would destroy any Cover 2 defense an opposing team throws at him.
to working the draft the way he recruited players at Miami—scouting the college teams’ postseason with his coaching staff instead of leaving it all to the scouts. He coached two Super Bowl winners in five seasons, then left a Super Bowl team behind and went on to make three playoff appearances in four seasons in Miami.
I don't think Jimmy Johnson was a bad coach, but I'm just not sure he is a Hall of Fame coach. I realize he had a terrible Cowboys team in the beginning, but his career winning percentage is below Brian Billick, Wade Phillips, Lovie Smith, and Mike Sherman. Obviously his two Super Bowl victories and how he turned the Cowboys around is impressive, but I don't think it is just the length of time he coached that holds him back from making the Super Bowl. He wasn't outstanding as a head coach except for three years in Dallas. That doesn't merit entry into the Hall of Fame in my opinion.
Though I believe Johnson is a strong candidate, he probably will never make the Hall. Most will say he needed to win more than 89 games as an NFL coach, and it’s a valid criticism. I just think there are some coaches, and players, who were so impactful over a short period that they deserve an airing in front of the 46 people who guard the door to the Hall of Fame.
I know Cowboys fans will probably disagree, but while Johnson was impactful over a short period of time, it was a pretty short period of time and I'm not sure that merits Hall of Fame consideration. His record in Miami is simply okay and not especially outstanding (though not really ironically, he had a better winning percentage in Miami than he did in Dallas).
Fine Fifteen
NFL teams placed randomly in supposed order of strength.
5. Indianapolis (3-1). Going West Coast/East Coast (Niners/Jags) was supposed to be harder than this: Colts 64, Foes 10.
It does help that the East Coast team is the Jacksonville Jaguars.
7. San Francisco (2-2). So … the nosetackle (Ian Williams) is lost in Week 2 with a broken ankle, and the best pass rusher (Aldon Smith) and multi-Pro Bowl inside linebacker (Patrick Willis) miss a road game on a short week against a Rams team with a fortified offense, and the Niners hold St. Louis to 188 yards and 11 points in a 35-11 rout. That’s some good depth right there, and some realization of the urgency of the day.
Or this could be a reflection on what kind of team the Rams are. Tavon Austin has 20 receptions for 124 yards by the way. Peter reported earlier this summer that Cortland Finnegan had trouble covering Austin in practice. Maybe the fact Cortland Finnegan couldn't cover Austin in practice is more of a reflection on Finnegan than Austin. Also, since Week 1 Jared Cook has 10 receptions for 99 yards. Not that I'm saying Cook stinks, but Peter had been talking up this Rams team for most of the summer. Reality may have set in.
15. Houston (2-2). Texans-Niners at Candlestick Sunday night. Combined record: 4-4.
I always enjoy how Peter seems surprised that every expected record for each NFL team doesn't turn into reality as the season wears on. If the NFL season played out exactly how it was supposed to play out on paper then it would be pretty boring, no? Who could ever believe the Texans and Niners are 4-4? The season must be over for both teams.
Coach of the Week
Rob Chudzinski, head coach, Cleveland. “You’re 2-0 since you gave up on the season,’’ I told Chudzinski Sunday night. He said: “Good thing nobody told that to our players.” Chudzinski may have some guys on his team looking at the brass cross-eyed for trading Trent Richardson after two weeks, but it’s a tribute to Chudzinski that the players are playing as hard as any group in the league.
Chudzinski has been the head coach for four games. I would be very surprised if the Browns team gave up on him and started tuning him out after four games, even if Trent Richardson got traded. Four games would have to be a record for an NFL team to give up on their coach.
Goat of the Week
Joe Flacco, QB, Baltimore. He threw five interceptions at Buffalo, leading to 13 Buffalo points, and the Ravens lost by three. Not good.
Obviously if Flacco still had Anquan Boldin as one of his wide receivers he never would have thrown five interceptions.
Never has a precocious, well-regarded phenom of a football coach seen his career go up in flames in seven years the way Lane Kiffin has.
This is the first use of "precocious" by Peter King in a few weeks now. It's so precocious of him to use it in reference to Lane Kiffin.
Head-coaching record: 40-35. Career postseason or bowl wins: zero.
Kiffin seems especially good at failing upwards so I have no doubt he will end up with a head coaching job very soon. Most likely he will get the University of Texas job if Mack Brown gets fired after this season. I'm assuming he will bring his "failing upwards" buddy Todd Haley with him to run the offense.
Mr. Starwood Preferred Member Travel Note of the Week
Since moving to the East Side of Manhattan a couple of years ago, United Nations Week (the early-fall week when the General Assembly is in session, and the most famous politicians in the world flood into the east side of the city) has been a revelation.
Peter is shocked that world leaders have tight security with them when traveling abroad.
So: As a two-year resident of Manhattan, I’ve gotten used to walking when the walk signs say walk, and most other times, staying out of the street. It’s for my own good; stories of pedestrians getting plowed over by cabs and cars pop up daily. On Wednesday, I was trying to cross Second Avenue 10 blocks north of the U.N., I saw the white “walk’’ sign lit, and I took a couple of steps into the street.
“SIRSIRSIR!!!!” yelled a cop about 10 feet away from me, and I looked up, and here was a motorcade with a New York City cop car driving maybe 30 miles an hour being waved through the intersection …
Whoa!
I would be willing to bet $100 that Peter was texting or doing something else instead of paying attention while stepping out into the street. Otherwise, doesn't it make sense he would see a freaking motorcade coming? Of course, if Peter was texting he leaves that part out because it makes him look bad. Peter had to have been distracted by something or else I can't imagine he wouldn't have seen the motorcade coming.
So I jumped back onto the sidewalk. It wasn’t that close, really. But as I stood there and the motorcade got waved through, I saw three black Escalades following very, very close to the police car (which didn’t have a siren on). In the third vehicle, the window of the driver’s-side passenger door was down, and a man in what appeared to be brown military fatigues with two hands on some sort of machine gun was inside.
Peter then pulled out his notebook and tried to write down the entire conversation going on in the limo, but unfortunately he was too far away to transcribe the entire conversation. It's a shame, but also very precocious of Peter.
Nice to have the city back this morning.
Yeah, get out of the city you smelly foreigners so that Peter can get back to texting and not paying attention to where he is walking.
1. I think this is what I liked about Week 4:
a. Brian Hoyer. Outplayed Andy Dalton. Nothing fluky about the 17-6 Cleveland win. That job is Hoyer’s until further notice, maybe until draft day.
Apparently "until further notice" means "until we can find a better quarterback."
g. Pat Haden’s decisiveness.
This is a joke, right? USC starts last season off as the #1 overall team in the country, then ended up playing in the Sun Bowl where the team gets into a fight with each other after the game. Kiffin showed (to me at least) he should have been fired PRIOR to this current season, but Peter lauds Haden's decisiveness? Haden could have fired Kiffin last January and not wasted an entire season with an interim head coach, but he waited until five games into the new college football season, wastes a year of his player's eligibility on an interim coach and sets the table for commits to USC to waver since there probably won't be a replacement named for another three months...yet Peter thinks Haden was decisive. Okay.
j. The insight of Austen Lane. In his writing for The MMQB, did you notice his difference in being cut by the Jags and being cut by the Chiefs? in Jacksonville, the coach and GM met with him, then the coach met with him individually. In Kansas City, the pro personnel guy met with him. That’s it.
Peter King really wants to help Austen Lane find a job in the NFL or as a writer. Peter mentioned Lane once before in this MMQB and has mentioned him repeatedly in MMQB's since he got cut by both teams. Watch out Austen, Peter also tried to get Chris Kluwe a job and he's still looking for permanent NFL work.
2. I think this is what I didn’t like about Week 4:
a. The games at Wembley have this one TV problem: Not enough lights in the stadium. Every one of those games looks dark.
I didn't really notice it was too dark. It was darker than a usual NFL indoor stadium, but I didn't think the game looked overly dark.
i. When Geno Smith is bad, he’s really bad. Wouldn’t be surprised to see Rex Ryan consider playing Matt Simms.
Because I'm sure Matt Simms will be able to fix everything for the Jets. Geno Smith is bad, but he is also a rookie and probably not ready to be a starting quarterback in the NFL. Either way, the fact Geno Smith is playing really bad at times should not be shocking. I was surprised when Smith didn't play terribly over the first couple of games. He's not exactly built to succeed as the quarterback for the Jets.
j. Re the Rashad Johnson lost-fingertip coverage: He lost half an inch of a fingertip. Nobody wants to lose a centimeter of a body part, obviously. But the coverage was a bit over the top. Excessive.
Wow, the coverage of an NFL player losing a finger is a bit over the top to Peter. This is the first MMQB he hasn't mentioned Tim Tebow all season by the way, and Tebow was released by the Patriots a month ago. I think the coverage of Johnson's lost fingertip was over the top for a reason. Who loses part of a finger and then doesn't realize it until he takes his gloves off?
I say this fully believing it...if Brett Favre had lost a fingertip while playing then I feel like I could guarantee Peter King would have pictures of the missing fingertip and an entire section of MMQB devoted to quotes from Favre about losing his finger, while marveling at just how incredibly tough Brett Favre is. I doubt Peter would have felt the coverage of Favre's missing finger was over the top if other sportswriters joined in marveling at Favre's toughness.
k. I’m not saying Tampa Bay is good. But I am saying the Bucs have lost three games in the most ridiculous manner, including blowing a late 10-0 lead to Arizona Sunday.
If almost-wins meant a team was on the right track then the Carolina Panthers should be Super Bowl contenders at this point. Blowing leads in a ridiculous manner sometimes means something is seriously wrong with a team that allows them to grab defeat from the jaws of victory.
5. I think the Bucs need to cut Josh Freeman. Today.
Then point #6 is also about Josh Freeman. I am not sure Peter understands how an outline works. Each number is supposed to represent an individual topic that he will discuss. Making #5 and #6 about the same topic, with #6 being an elaboration on the same topic as #5 goes against the entire objective of an outline. Peter should elaborate about point #5 in point #5 using the information he ended up writing in point #6, yet sometimes Peter doesn't do this. This has always frustrated me a little bit for some reason.
6. I think these things are always tricky.
Point #5 says the Buccaneers need to cut Josh Freeman today and point #6 says it is tricky. Apparently it isn't tricky enough of a situation for Peter to make a definitive statement on what he thinks the Buccaneers should do.
They’re in a poisonous relationship with Freeman. They owe him $6.4 million, guaranteed, for the final three months of a lost season, and every day he spends on campus with the team is an ugly one. It’d be one thing if there were a team out there dying to trade for him. I was in touch with the Jags and Browns on Sunday about their prospective interest...Each team told me the same thing: No interest.
If these two teams did have interest in Freeman, would they say, "Hell yes, we are interested in Josh Freeman! I'm glad you asked Peter, we are desperate to acquire him!"?
I doubt that would happen. So while I believe the Jaguars and Browns aren't interested in Freeman, I also wouldn't expect them to state they are interested because it would reduce some of their bargaining power if the Buccaneers come calling with a trade offer. Peter has to understand this, right? NFL teams will lie and misstate their interest in a player in order to keep their bargaining power when attempting to acquire a player.
The Bucs should give Greg Schiano a chance to save his job and save the 2013 season, and the only way to do that is to cut Freeman loose now.
Or the Buccaneers could stop releasing Freeman's medical information (unless they weren't the ones who released Freeman's medical information, though I'm not sure who could have been responsible in that case) and provide the public with knowledge that Freeman is in Stage 1 of the drug program. I'm not sure why Schiano deserves a chance to save his job personally, especially with the way this Freeman situation has been handled.
7. I think it’s too late now, but Freeman should have stood his ground, worked his way back to the job and showed future employers he can fight back from adversity. What he looks like now, to the other 31 teams in the league, is a guy who had trouble with a coaching staff, played poorly, overslept for the team photo (if that’s a true story) and started whining when he got yanked. What team is going to pay good money for a 53 percent passer (since the start of 2012) who goes renegade on a team when times are tough?
It seems the smearing of Josh Freeman has worked to convince Peter King that Freeman is the real problem in this situation and not the Buccaneers coaching staff. It's nearly impossible to know who is really the bad guy in this situation, if there is even a bad guy, but Freeman is 25 years old and has 25+ touchdown passes twice. He's been bad lately, but I don't think it isn't anything some good coaching couldn't help turn around.
10. I think these are my non-football thoughts of the week:
c. Loved The Lyman Bostock Story, about the Angels outfielder shot to death while in the wrong place at the wrong time in Gary, Ind., late in the 1978 season. Congrats on a job well done, Bruce Cornblatt.
It's so exciting when a tragic death is played out in dramatic fashion. Maybe Chuck Pagano can use this tragedy to motivate his Colts players!
d. Kudos, too, to Rory Karpf, for his revealing Book of Manning documentary. Most of us never knew about the tortured life of Archie Manning’s dad, and it was a story artfully told.
Because the one thing I know I want to see more of during football season is attention paid to the Manning family. It's bad enough I can barely get away from them during commercial breaks, but to have to watch an entire documentary on the family (no matter how well done), no thanks.
f. Sorry. I can’t demonize the retiring Andy Pettitte forever for his one detour into PEDs. I can castigate him for it, and I can always think of it when I think of him. (If it was more than that, I will stand corrected.) But I don’t think of him as a consistent PED user.
It's always fun to hear baseball fans try to differentiate between someone who has used PED's and a "consistent PED user" to explain why different players get treated differently for using PED's. The bottom line is that Peter wants to treat different players in a different way, so he differentiates between "consistent" PED user and a one-time PED user as if we know for sure a player fits into one category or another. Pettitte seemed really, really sorry and A-Rod doesn't, plus Peter wants to forgive Pettitte but doesn't want to forgive A-Rod. There's the real difference.
g. Coffeenerdness: Nobody likes a coffee nerd, and so when I started to tell the barista at Starbucks the other day that she was making the macchiato wrong (espresso on the bottom of the cup, with milk on top, which it shouldn’t be), I caught myself and shut up.
Nobody likes it when another person tells them how to do their job, so Peter wouldn't have come off as a coffee nerd, but would have come off as an asshole.
j. My World Series guess: Oakland over St. Louis in seven.
Oh good, then the media can find Tony LaRussa and find out which team he is pulling for to win the series.
The Adieu Haiku
Chip’s balloon has burst.
What a difference a month makes.
DeSean: Play DeD.
"What a difference a month makes"? I guess this is what Peter gets (and myself, since I picked the Eagles to win the NFC East) for assuming that Chip Kelly is going to come into the NFL and immediately revolutionize everything about how NFL teams run their offense. Apparently NFL teams have to play defense too.
I'm probably stupid, but I don't know what "Desean: Play DeD" means. It does feel like a dumb way to end the already dumb use of a haiku.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)