Fred linked Peter King's grades of the 2001 Draft (from a 2006 MMQB) in the Saturday post and it piqued my interest to the point I decided I have to cover the entire thing. I don't like to do a post about the same sportswriter more than twice in a week so I am going to try and make this the Peter King limit for the week. Before we get to Peter's 2001 grades I wanted to show everyone Peter's infamous talent evaluation skills.
Here is a 1997 NFL draft review that Peter did one year after that draft (1998 for those that have trouble counting). Let's let Peter show off his talent evaluation skills in sentence form. Remember he had seen these guys play in the NFL for a solid year already. I am not even going to provide any commentary (ok, I will provide some) because it is really not necessary.
TAMPA BAY Warrick Dunn is terrific, Reidel Anthony a good-enough No. 2 NFL receiver,
WASHINGTON Linebacker Greg Jones, plucked in the second round, will make three Pro Bowls before he retires,
Well Greg Jones did play for 3 NFL teams and have 22 tackles and 6 sacks for his career. I am sure some other player was blocking him from those Pro Bowl appearances and that is why he never made one.
Quick props to Peter:
PITTSBURGH Corner Chad Scott played well in December, and front-seven contributor Mike Vrabel turned out to be a third-round steal.
Good call on Vrabel.
Back to no props:
HOUSTON Kenny Holmes should be a double-digit sack guy this year, and Joey Kent should turn into a solid receiver.
INDIANAPOLIS The Colts tried to rebuild line in the first two rounds with Tarik Glenn and Adam Meadows. They failed.
I am pretty sure they both turned into good NFL tackles for Indianapolis and I have sincerely never heard of Kenny Holmes (as rightly pointed out by HH in the comments, I have heard of Kenny Holmes and he was never a double digit sack guy but also wasn't horrible so I retract the insinuation he wasn't good) or Joey Kent (I don't think).
BUFFALO Running back Antowain Smith is a great acquisition for a team that will live and die on the ground. The rest of this draft means very little.
Other than Marcellus Wiley of course who became a solid NFL defensive end.
DETROIT Bryant Westbrook and Kevin Abrams, picked in the first and third rounds, respectively, should make for a good NFL corner tandem.
GREEN BAY Green Bay seems to fancy Darren Sharper at safety. That love affair will be short-lived.
As you can see, this year when Peter refuses to consider Sharper as Defensive Player of the Year isn't the first time he has hated on Sharper. I wonder why Peter hates Darren Sharper?
BALTIMORE Peter Boulware, who led all rookies in sacks, won't be a 12-sack guy consistently, and there's not another impact player in the 12-pick bunch.
Other than Jamie Sharper and Jeff Mitchell of course, both of whom were good NFL players.
NEW YORK JETS James Farrior will be a solid if unspectacular NFL player, but the best player in this nine-man draft will turn out to be running back Leon Johnson, who was tabbed in the fourth round.
Leon Johnson was just so-so but Jason Ferguson was taken in this draft in the 7th round and he and Farrior turned into good NFL players.
OAKLAND Defensive tackle Darrell Russell was an easy pick.
Easily a bad pick. Along with Gerard Warren he is the prototype for defensive tackles who have little motivation and bust after being drafted early in the 1st round.
So that's just a small sample of Peter's evaluation abilities. Let's get to his 2006 NFL draft redo. Pay special attention to the fact Peter's "I'm better than you" attitude didn't seem to be as present. I don't really have a set evaluation method to determine how the grades should have gone (3 starters = B+, etc.), but when Peter gives a grade I don't agree with, I will link the roster and then begin arguing. Sounds like fun huh?
Readers of this space know how much I hate grading drafts a day or two after the draft. It's like going to law school, passing the bar, and the next day someone says: You're going to be an "A'' lawyer. How in the world does anyone know who the "A'' lawyer is going to be until he or she has been out in the real world for a while?
So that must be why Peter waited five years to evaluate the draft. Peter starts with teams that get "A's." As always, if you think I missed anything just go ahead and tell me.
2. Carolina.
Then-director of football operations Marty Hurney (now the GM) should have gone straight to Vegas after the first day. Dan Morgan, Kris Jenkins, Steve Smith. Wow. And even though Chris Weinke has flamed out since a rookie year when he earned the starting job, he has started 16 games and remains a decent backup for Jake Delhomme.
Ok, maybe an A- because Weinke was a backup to Delhomme but he wasn't even a good backup. In fact, when Delhomme missed a game in 2006 the Panthers officially introduced the Wildcat into the NFL against Atlanta with DeAngelo Williams running it because they in no way trusted Weinke to throw the football or be the quarterback. Chris Weinke was not a decent backup. This was after Weinke started for an entire year and had 5 years to learn the offense. That should tell us something about Weinke's ability as a quarterback.
Peter really needs to give some more "+" or "-" in his grades. Just giving letter grades without them is misleading in many of these redo grades.
Now, onto the "B's"...
3. Atlanta. The Vick pick is still being debated, and I don't think he's going to go down as an all-time great, but the fact is, he's an electric presence every time he plays and helped change the culture from mediocre to threatening in Atlanta. In Round 2, Alge Crumpler has turned into a top-three NFL tight end and has started all but 13 of his Falcons games in five years. Seventh-round pick Kynan Forney has started 68 games and is a fixture at right guard. Two other decent players from Round 4 -- offensive lineman Roberto Garza and linebacker Matt Stewart -- started for the Falcons before leaving as free agents. Not a bad haul.
If you are going to give Carolina an "A," you have to give Atlanta an "A" as well. 2 guys went on to become a Top 5 players at their position and the other three picks that panned out were solid starters. Atlanta should get an "A" for this draft.
4. Baltimore. Picking last because of its Super Bowl win only adds to the shine of this draft. It's a shame the cap-ravaged Ravens couldn't have kept these guys when they got good. The top four picks -- Todd Heap, Gary Baxter, Casey Rabach and Ed Hartwell -- are all average or better NFL starters.
This draft is a borderline B+ for me. Plus, Ed Hartwell and his wife later appeared on "Real Housewives of Atlanta" on Bravo after Hartwell had gotten injured and been releasd by the Falcons, which when I found out led to this exchange.
(Me) "Please tell me this isn't another 'Real Housewives' show."
(Loved one) "Yeah and this girl is married to an NFL football player."
(Me actually semi-interested) "Oh yeah, who is he?"
(Loved one) "Ed Hartwell."
(Me no longer interested and walking away disappointed) "He is not a football player, he may have played football at one point in Baltimore, but he is no longer a football player. He was signed to a big contract and then got injured repeatedly."
(Loved one wondering why I was born to be an asshole) "He's making a comeback."
(Me) "Which is why he and his wife agreed to be paid to be on a reality show. No one wants him and the only thing he is coming back to is a world of disappointment about ever playing in the NFL again and signing up for a second season of this show."
Despite my anti-love for Ed Hartwell, this Ravens draft is still a B+.
5. San Diego. I struggle giving a "B'' for a two-person draft, but what put me over is the impact of the two.
No, no, no. A draft that pulls two Hall of Fame type players is an A. Throw in Carlos Polk who was a serviceable player and this is an "A" draft and there should never be an argument about this. It is hard to give a two player draft such a high grade but it was a great two person draft.
6. Arizona. Picking second, it's pretty hard to screw up. Leonard Davis has been a good piece of the puzzle, though not the dominant player everyone predicted he'd be, in his 75 starts in the desert. Fitting that the Cards gave up on maybe the best player in this crop, defensive end Kyle Vanden Bosch, who they let walk (to Tennessee) after two knee injuries. Vanden Bosch turned into one of the league's best pass-rushers last year and signed a lucrative deal with the Titans to stay. Third-round Adrian Wilson has turned into a strong up-the-middle presence at strong safety in his 61 starts,
This draft is a "C" simply because both Davis and Van Dan Bosch played their best football for other teams. Usually I try to ignore this, but the Cardinals blew the 2nd pick and don't have too much else to show for it once Davis and Van Dan Bosch left.
Now we get to the C+ teams...
10. New York Jets. Poor Jets. A nice little draft and nothing to show for it. Look at the top four picks. Santana Moss is beating the Cowboys for Washington. LaMont Jordan, when he can hang on to the ball, is running reasonably well for Oakland. Kareem McKenzie is an anchor on the line for the team across the Hudson River.
I don't even count LaMont Jordan as a good running back and the other players are nobodies who have never done anything, or play well for another team. This draft is a "D" because there is no one out of this draft who helped the Jets while they were actually on the Jets roster.
11. Detroit. Jeff Backus, Dominic Raiola and Shaun Rogers came in the first three picks and have all been regular starters.
The Lions had six picks in this draft. Three of those picks became NFL starters and Mike McMahon looked like he had promise for a while. Hitting on three of six picks gets a "B-" at the very least from me.
Onto the "C" teams...
13. Denver. Willie Middlebrooks was a poor first-round pick, followed by second-round DE Paul Toviessi.
A "C" for the Broncos? They hit on one draft pick out of six and blew their 1-3 round picks. Ben Hamilton saves this draft from being an absolute disaster. If there is a draft that deserves a big fat "D" it is this draft. Reggie Hayward is just a guy and the first two picks were busts. Peter has Denver with the 13th best draft in 2001. He must have been high when he wrote this.
15. Kansas City. On the surface, this draft is horrendous, with first-day picks Eric Downing and Snoop Minnis total flops. But the Chiefs sent their first-round pick, 12th overall, to St. Louis for Trent Green and a pick that netted backup back Derrick Blaylock. And without Green, this team would have been floundering at quarterback.
I can respect they traded their 1st round pick for Trent Green...but my question is what would they have done with that 1st round pick? Probably blow it like they blew every mid-to-late round pick they had here.
It's a draft of nobodies, so even assuming they get credit for a decent 1st round pick that would have been the sum total of their draft. This draft gets a "D-" from me and the only reason it doesn't get an "F" is because they did get Trent Green for a 1st round pick they would have screwed up anyway.
17. Philadelphia.
As I said, strange draft, and helpful to the franchise in spurts.
Here I go being a hardass again. Assuming I give them credit for what Correll Buckhalter could have been and the fact Derek Burgess is just average, we still have to acknowledge the fact the Eagles blew their 1st two picks and none of these players started for the Eagles for more than a year. What does a draft with no starters get from me? A "D+" and I am being kind.
19. Seattle. Weird, weird draft. Immature misfit Koren Robinson with the ninth overall pick. Steve Hutchinson, the best guard in football, was the 17th. Good corner (albeit overpaid now with Carolina) Ken Lucas in Round 2, and Hutchinson's heir, Pork Chop Womack, in Round 4. Heath Evans and Orlando Huff have been serviceable NFL players, decent mid-round picks.
Seattle had 12 picks that year and they broke down into 6 "where the hell are they now" picks, 1 bust (Robinson), 1 great All-Pro player (Hutchinson), 2 valuable starters (Lucas, Womack), and 2 good NFL players (Evans and Huff). Considering 8 of the 12 picks were from Rounds 4-7 and the Seahawks got 2 good players out of them and hit on 3 of their first 4 picks, I am a little bit more kind. I give them a "B-" for this draft.
22. Green Bay. This was the Jamal Reynolds debacle at No. 10. A useless pass-rusher now out of football. Robert Ferguson has been an OK part-time starter, a decent second-round pick. Bhawoh Jue was mostly a nickel safety in his four years in Green Bay before leaving for San Diego as a free agent last year. Seventh-rounder David Martin has been a good No. 2 tight end. Martin, in fact, saved this draft from being a D.
No, no, no. This is a "D-" draft, if that. Green Bay had 4 picks in Rounds 1-3 and missed on every single one of them except one and he was just an decent player. A #2 tight end is great in Round 7 but there is no way this is a "C" class when there isn't a starter to be seen on the roster and the best pick is a part-time starter. This could have been an "F" in my book.
23. Tennessee. Not a bad draft, just a totally non-impactful one for today's Titans, and one of the reasons they're struggling again. With no first-round pick, Tennessee took Andre Dyson, Shad Meier and Justin McCareins in Rounds 2, 3 and 4.
So how the hell did this draft get a "C?" Look at the players who were drafted and tell me there is a player on that list who made an impact. I will give it a "D" because the first pick came at #60.
24. Oakland. Give the Raiders credit, just a little, for getting some value for picking so late -- 28th in the first round -- and getting a usable safety, Derrick Gibson, in the first round. After that, some blah roster-fillers. Marques Tuiasosopo, DeLawrence Grant, Chris "I Got Bad Advice from Romo'' Cooper.
I will do no such thing as to give the Raiders credit. Other than Gibson, who when picking at #28 a team should still be picking players who are better than "usable," this was a draft full of nobodies and never-have-beens. As much as I would love to raise the grade since they drafted Ken-Yon Rambo (what a great name) I can't do it. This draft is another "D" in my mind.
25. Washington. First-rounder Rod Gardner was a stiff from Day 1. Fred Smoot, of Love Boat fame, was a risk-taker and at times a very good corner for three-plus years. Sage Rosenfels, now in Houston, might have a future somewhere -- Phil Simms raves about him -- but he never did a thing for the Skins.
Fred Smoot was a decent player and in typical Redskins fashion they had traded away all of their draft picks and only had 5 picks. It's hard to grade such a small draft where a team only has 2 picks in the Top 108 picks. I give it a "D+" for lack of a better way to grade the draft.
I find it interesting Peter mentions Sage Rosenfels could have a future somewhere because he did get his chance for about a week in Minnesota this past offseason and we all know how that ended up.
Now onto the teams who Peter gave an "F" to...
29. Minnesota. The only player of any value from this draft was Michael Bennett, who rushed for 3,174 yards in 49 starts. That is one mediocre running back. The last seven picks in this crop? Valueless.
The funny part about calling Michael Bennett a mediocre running back by gaining 3,174 yards in 49 starts is that it averages out to 64.8 yards per game, which comes to about 1,036 yards for a season. This "mediocre" running back is a 1,000 yard rusher. Kind of devalues the idea of a 1,000 rusher during a 16 game schedule a little bit doesn't it?
If there was a grade I could give lower than "F" I would do it here...so I will make up a lower grade. The Vikings get an "F-" for having an absolutely terrible draft.
30. Cleveland. One decent pick: fourth-round corner Anthony Henry, now playing for Dallas. Among the horrible picks here -- Gerard Warren over Richard Seymour, Quincy Morgan over Chris Chambers -- is one grand champion.
31. Chicago. I'll give you Anthony Thomas, a role-playing running back who's not great at anything. Decent second-round pick. But none of the six choices are still in Chicago, and David Terrell, eighth overall, dropped more big passes than he caught.
Cleveland and Chicago's drafts were absolutely horrible. I wanted to give you Peter's comments to underscore this. I would show you the draft picks they actually chose, but I wouldn't want it to hurt your eyes like it did mine.
Now let's look at what Peter thought about the 2001 NFL draft without 5 years to evaluate how the players did. First, we will see Peter's thoughts halfway through the first round.
The Browns, quite simply, picked the best player for their team right now. Gerard Warren has the biggest upside of any player in this draft except for Michael Vick. Warren could be another Warren. Warren Sapp.
Or he could be one of the biggest busts in the history of the NFL draft.
You need to help Tim Couch. You will. You’ll get a receiver or back at the top of the second round.
They did draft a receiver in the 2nd round. Congratulations Browns fans! It's a Quincy Morgan!
Take my word for it: This is the right pick at the right time.
Just Peter King, Browns fans and everything will be fine. Gerard Warren was the right choice over the other 12 other legitimate Pro Bowl choices you could have had in the 1st round alone, which doesn't include Drew Brees, Chad Johnson, or Kris Jenkins.
This is what happens when you trust Peter King.
5. I think this pick brought me out of my seat, and not in a positive sense: Casey Hampton to the Steelers at 19. Huh? You mean you couldn’t trade down again to pick up some more lucre, Bill Cowher?
Casey Hampton has two Super Bowl rings and four Pro Bowl appearances. I wonder if Peter still thinks Cowher should have chosen someone who would actually make an impact in the NFL on a meaningful level.
Here are Peter's post-draft thoughts.
1. I think these were the best values in the first round:
a. Kenyatta Walker to Tampa Bay at No. 14. Incredible. He’s a more versatile player than Leonard Davis and will cost $1.5 million less per year.
b. Nate Clements to Buffalo at 21. Great cover guy and physical enough to be the type of run supporter head coach Gregg Williams demands out of his corners.
c. Heap to Baltimore at 31. He’s the best receiving tight end to come out in five years. And he’s got an Ed McCaffery -esque bag of moves too. Now, he’ll need to learn to block.
While I am being hard on Peter, I may as well acknowledge that he got all three of these "value" picks right.
4. I think Tony Dungy is the happiest man in the NFL right now. He started the day with the 21st pick in the first round. He ended the day with a Pro Bowl left tackle. Those are rare, you know.
Ok, I think Peter is going a little overboard now. Kenyatta Walker is a solid left tackle but he isn't a Pro Bowl type left tackle.
5. I think, inching into round two, that the Chargers are very, very lucky. The Drew Brees availability and pick get them off the hook for ditching Michael Vick. Brees, coached right, will be the second coming of Brian Griese.
The second coming of Brian Griese huh? At one point in the past I think that was a compliment and not an insult. I think this may have been that point...but as of today, that's a huge insult.
Let's look at Peter's thoughts pre-draft. Look at the his picture too. He looked so young and innocent...what happened?
As someone who has studied Michael Vick quite a bit over the past month and come to the conclusion that he might be the biggest boom-or-bust prospect in NFL draft history (I mean that), I have a problem with the team that traded the chance to pick him ... and the one that acquired that chance Friday.
Peter studied Vick for A WHOLE MONTH before the draft. This makes him an expert since he started evaluating Vick two months after the college football season was over. What I don't get is how Peter King can evaluate a college player after the season is over and believe he has an actual knowledge on the skill of this player. Yesterday, he mentioned he had never heard of Jeremiah Masoli, so how can he evaluate Masoli when it comes time for his mock drafts or when it comes time to give his opinion on college quarterbacks? I can't believe he watches that much (or any) game film after the season.
Peter wants credit for studying Vick but there are many who have watched Vick's every college football game, so they would know as much as Peter King does. I think Peter just hears what people tells him about college players and then parrots it in his MMQB. That's how he came up with the "Aaron Curry can sack the quarterback" theory he had.
The San Diego Chargers, the traders, now move into the fifth spot in the first round. That puts them in jeopardy of missing out on the best quarterback of this draft and maybe the best playmaking-quarterback prospect ever. But it also probably puts them out of range of drafting the top player on their board, TCU running back LaDainian Tomlinson.
Of course the Chargers drafted LaDainian Tomlinson.
They also got poor value, the fifth and 67th picks, for the first overall pick -- in addition to a second-round pick in 2002.
The Chargers got LT, Tay Cody, Reche Caldwell, and Tim Dwight for Mike Vick. So pretty much Vick and Tomlinson were traded for each other. I will let you decide how much value the Chargers got (no matter how poorly they drafted the players at the Falcons' spots) but I never thought this was a bad trade for the Chargers.
The Atlanta Falcons, the tradees, just might have given away second- and third-round picks plus Tim Dwight (I know, whoopee) for nothing.
Anytime a team moves up in the draft to take a player they are risking giving away picks for nothing, so this pretty much goes for any team that does this.
4. I think the Green Bay Packers might surprise a lot of us Saturday if they pick -- as I hear they might -- the No. 1 man on their draft board, risky North Carolina State wideout Koren Robinson.
The Packers ended up drafting Jamal Reynolds, so basically whoever the Packers decided to draft he was going to be a bust.
That's about all the interesting insight we got from Peter.
-I am not going to cover Bill Simmons Friday column this week, but to no one's surprise he chimed in on the Bill Belichick decision against the Colts. I know Bill only writes once a week nowadays but he posted this on Friday and the decision was made by Belichick on Sunday night. We were all pretty talked out about it at that point. I know Bill feels the need to write about anything Boston area related, but there comes a point when a sports event is sort of in the past. I would say 5 days after the decision was made is almost reaching that point.
Before reading, I expected the Boston-centric comparisons and I wasn't disappointed:
After my beloved Patriots threw away Sunday's Colts game with one unnecessarily dangerous decision, my educated opinion was this: "That's the second dumbest thing I have ever seen any Boston team do." It trumped Darrell Johnson pitching Jim Burton in Game 7 of the 1975 World Series. It trumped K.C. Jones playing Fred Roberts ahead of Reggie Lewis for the entire 1988 playoffs. It trumped Raymond Berry starting Tony Eason in Super Bowl XX. It trumped everything except Grady/Pedro in 2003.
Because any comparison that needs to be made has to be compared to another New England related sporting event since the entire world revolves around what happens to those sports teams.
The Patriots have five monster defeats since winning Super Bowl XXXIX -- 2005 (Denver, playoffs); 2006 (Indy, AFC title game); 2007 (Giants, Super Bowl XLII); 2008 (Indy, regular season); 2009 (Indy, regular season) -- in which they self-destructed in decidedly un-Belichickian ways. Five years of bad luck and bullet-ridden shoes are starting to add up.
Oh God! The Patriots haven't won every single big game they have played over the last 5 years. What a horror for the Patriots! No other team in the NFL is as cursed as the Patriots are. There must be a curse that goes along with these happenings.
Nevermind Bill is too self involved to see that nearly every single one of these games, except the two games against Indy, took place in the postseason which is a place not a lot of teams get to go in year after year, that doesn't matter. To Bill, the Patriots are a New England team so they have to win every game every single year and anything less is bad luck.
Also, not shockingly Bill spends the entire Friday column talking about the Belichick fourth down call and puts his picks to the side without comments. The picks are much less important than hearing what Bill has to say about Belichick's fourth down call, even though it has been covered by more qualified individuals in a much better fashion 3-4 days earlier.
Just don't tell me this Sunday night didn't mean … something. In the aforementioned Game 6, I remember watching those Yankees fans celebrating after the seventh and thinking, "There is absolutely nobody in my sports fan life now that makes me feel as secure as those Yankee fans feel with Rivera right now."
I used to feel that way about the Patriots. I did. And now we're here.
Oh no! The Patriots haven't won a Super Bowl in five years. The world is over, let's get back to pitying Bill Simmons due to his team's bad luck because that is what he wants us to do. Bill doesn't feel secure because he sort of feels like his team doesn't have the best NFL coach anymore and this is something he feels like he deserves pity for. The world as he knows it is over.
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Monday, November 23, 2009
13 comments MMQB Review: There's Matty Ices Everywhere!
Another exciting week of NFL football action has come and gone and now all we have to look forward to is the Monday Night Football Game between Houston and Tennessee. Do they even play in the NFL? I would be surprised if ESPN didn't put their "D" NFL team on this game consisting of Ron Franklin and Todd Blackledge. It doesn't even have a sexy East Coast team to be seen in the matchup. They may not even televise the game.
Monday Night Football games aside, Peter King is back again with his MMQB and it's an ode to "Matts." If your first name begins with Matt, Peter loves you (except Schaub). What do we learn today, does Peter think this Ricky Williams player could be a breakout player this year and more importantly, will Peter be able to get a full 2 questions for his Tuesday mailbag based on this column? We'll see I guess.
Talking with commissioner Roger Goodell, while he was getting his makeup wiped off in our NBC Football Night in America studio Sunday night after his Eagles-Bears halftime appearance ...
"You know how great you have it in the NFL this year?'' I asked. "Your TV ratings are totally through the roof, and here we are today, worst game of the year, Cleveland-Detroit, and it might be the best game of the year.''
That was an exciting game, no one can doubt that, but was it the "best game of the year?" Cleveland scored 37 points! Not the Cleveland Cavaliers, but the Cleveland Browns. Detroit scored 38 points. It had an exciting and a little bizarre finish but I don't know if I would call a game where there was little-to-no defense played between two very bad football teams as "the best game of the year." We all know I am about the little guy and Peter covering each team, but this game didn't strike me as football played at it's highest level for extended periods of time so there is no need to get overly excited about it. Of course that won't stop Peter. I am torn here, because I like it when Peter pays attention to other teams but I have to also acknowledge these are two bad teams who played each other.
Last week it was a 35-34 game between the Colts and Patriots that captured America.
As much as it would please me to argue this point, we did talk about this game A LOT. Maybe "captured America" is a bit dramatic and overdoing it. The game didn't exactly capture America, it was Bill Belichick's fourth down call that piqued the interest of America and the world (some parts of the world at least. England still doesn't give a shit).
We'll start there, then meander through the play Kansas City coach Todd Haley drew up in the dirt (slight exaggeration) to beat the World Champions.
Don't write it if it's an exaggeration. In journalism that is called a "slight lie."
Before Stafford and I started talking, I could hear the labored breathing and slight grunts -- I assume from Stafford -- as the harness went on his shoulder. X-rays were negative, but you could read his lips after he threw the winning touchdown and went to the sideline in intense pain. "It's out! It's out!'' he said, meaning his shoulder popped out of the socket.
If this were Brett Favre we would hear about this injury at the press conference after the game, in the interviews in the locker room, possibly through the week after the game, and of course he would tell Peter all about it.
"I don't know how I played today, my shoulder was out of socket. I'm not a hero, just a normal guy who played a game of football with his shoulder ripped out of socket because I love this game so much and couldn't let my teammates down. Is that microphone on? You are recording my heroic statement, right?"
Now I understand the wounded Lions fans. I hear from so many of you. The hopelessness, the anti-Matt Millenism, the surrender, the longing simply to be relevant again. And Goodell's right. This might have been something big right here. Not saying the Lions are on the road to contention. But they're mad as hell, and they're not going to take the losing anymore,
I hate to be a wet blanket, but they beat the Cleveland Browns...and gave up 37 points...at home...to the Cleveland Browns. The defense of the Lions gave up 37 points to the Browns and I am supposed to think this means the Lions have turned a corner because the game ended excitingly? Really the only statement this game makes is, "we are not as bad as the Cleveland Browns are."
And so that's why I choose this morning to write about the second win of the Detroit Lions at the top of the column, rather than the 10th victory for the Saints and the Colts.
Because you literally write about those two teams every single week? That would be the reason I would use to not cover these games extensively in MMQB on this date.
We all know the reason Peter wrote about the Cleveland-Detroit game this week is because, for some reason, this is the game he watched in it's entirety this weekend. That's what he does. He watches a game in it's entirety and then writes his column about that game and fills in the rest of the MMQB with highlights he was able to glean from some other games. If the game he didn't watch in it's entirety is the best game of the day, he calls and gets quotes from that game from the players and then writes about it. That's how Peter rolls.
The game came down to two plays. You've seen them, I'm sure. With eight seconds left and Cleveland up 37-31 (thanks to Brady Quinn's four touchdown passes)
I thought Brady Quinn should have been starting all year for the Browns, so I am a sort of Quinn fan...but he threw 4 touchdown passes in this game against the Lions defense and he has never shown this ability throughout his entire career before this game. This is not an indication the Lions are back on the right track.
Bang! Mosley drove Stafford as hard as a quarterback can be driven into the ground. The ball fluttered into the air, right into the arms of safety Brodney Pool.
So the very definition of "clutch," Matt Stafford, actually threw an interception that would have lost the game if it hadn't been for a lucky flag? Let's just ignore this and focus on his heroism. We did it for years with Favre.
"I was flat on my back on the sidelines, and the doctors were trying to figure out what was wrong with my shoulder,'' said Stafford. "But I heard, 'Timeout Cleveland,' and then I knew I could come back in.''
And the Lions got lucky when Mangini coached his team to a loss by calling a timeout letting Stafford back in the game. If these two plays don't scream "high quality football" then I don't know know what is wrong with you. We have porous defense, clutchly thrown interceptions, and piss poor coaching. It was like the Super Bowl, just not televised as widely.
Meanwhile, Schwartz hollered at his medical staff: "Is he good to go?'' And one of the doctors said no, and Schwartz asked what was wrong, and the doc said he didn't know because they hadn't had time to examine him yet.
"The kid put himself back in the game,'' Schwartz said.
Brilliant move by Schwartz to allow his franchise quarterback, who was injured but no one had an idea what was wrong with him, to just go back in the game. Brilliant.
Even the medical staff of Detroit is incompetent.
The Chiefs install their red-zone pass plays on Thursday mornings. Usually they're pulled out of the phone-book-thick playbook, plays that were taught in minicamps, practiced in training camp and used, most likely, a few times previously during the season. But last Thursday, Haley walked into the offensive team meeting and told his team he had something new to use against the Steelers down near the goal line -- a shovel pass to running back Jamaal Charles while the rest of the team was in max-protect mode.
This was the play Peter thought Todd Haley had drawn in the dirt. To Peter a shovel pass near the goal line is winging it. To the rest of the world this is an actual, smart football play, but to Peter this is crazy freelancing.
As Keith Olbermann said Sunday night, "Ryan Succop for the win, and oh, don't you look nice tonight, Mrs. Cleaver.''
This statement is not funny, not witty, not clever...I don't care about Keith Olbermann's politics or anything else about him. He is a smug asshole and if he truly ceased to be on this earth (maybe be shot into space or something) then I would feel slightly better knowing there is one less smug, self impressed douchebag alive.
Football and war really do have something in common, other than the cliches.
No they don't.
Good story by Jay Glazer on FOX's pregame show about how independent neurologists will soon be employed at all NFL games, so that a team physician paid by a franchise won't have a conflict of interest about whether to allow an injured player back in the game.
How interesting considering Peter King was just lauding Matt Stafford for coming back in the game before the trainers had a chance to check him for his injury and now he is lecturing on the importance of proper safety in the NFL. Gregg Easterbrook is right about this part. Football guys lecture us on how important football safety is and then praise individuals who come back from injury quickly and ignore any health concerns there may be.
He said he thinks organized offseason conditioning has spiraled out of control. (And bully for him on this -- it's ridiculous how year-round a job playing and coaching has become.) "I'm a firm believer that players are overworked in the offseason,'' Goodell said. "They probably need to get away from the game a little bit more. And when they're away, they probably work harder.
I wonder why Peter is all for this? Probably because it means he will have some more time off during the summer. Lazy...
But what makes Minnesota dangerous is that Brett Favre's playing like he played in his three-year MVP run a decade and a half ago. In fact, my Twitter followers are appealing for me to have Favre pass Peyton Manning in my MVP Watch below, and if he keeps this up, I'm going to have a very tough decision at the end of the year.
I really, really, really doubt Peter King's Twitter followers are begging for him to have Brett Favre pass Peyton Manning in the MVP Watch. There are probably 9 Vikings fans who want this to happen. This is beyond absurd. Brett Favre has the best running back in the NFL AND one of the best defenses in the NFL on his side, while Peyton Manning IS the Colts. The Vikings won their division and made the playoffs without Favre last year, sure he has added value to the team, but there is no way based on that information anyone can truly believe Favre is more valuable than Peyton Manning. What are the Colts without Manning, 2-8 right now?
Watching Favre through 10 weeks, I'm starting to think he's going to make it through 16 games, and more. His groin strain doesn't seem to be bothering him.
Yes, Peter King just extended his streak of talking about Brett Favre in every MMQB since last December (that's how far back I chose to go). The reason Favre's groin strain doesn't bother him is because it likely doesn't exist. It's hard to be affected by an injury that doesn't exist or at least isn't as severe as Favre likes to play up.
Clearly, it's helped Favre to have the best offensive supporting cast he's ever had. The line keeps him clean, he has the best all-around back in football, Adrian Peterson, behind him, and he has three deep threats (Percy Harvin, Sidney Rice and Bernard Berrian), the kind of depth at receiver he didn't have with the Packers or Jets.
So because Favre has a better supporting cast he should be the MVP? This doesn't make sense. Peter has spent this entire NFL season telling everyone and anyone who will listen how Peyton Manning is doing such a great job with the nobodies on his offense and now he wants to just forget that and give the MVP to Favre while acknowledging the supporting cast around Favre. It's madness.
Aaron Rodgers is cleaning up his act in the pocket.
A couple of times last year, when he was most frustrated, Vince Young would text Kobe Bryant, who had become something of a mentor. He'd write something like, "Man, I wanna play so bad. What do I do?''
Don't tell people you hate football and act like you want to kill yourself. You could also try to get traded and then pretend you are cool with your teammates when you are forced to play with them because the team wouldn't trade you." That would be Kobe Bryant's advice.
Those demands came to a head early last season, when his worried mother reached out for help after seeing Young leave his house with a gun.
"That was blown out of proportion,'' said Young. "My mom never saw me with a pistol before, and when she did, she got nervous. I have a pistol for protection. I was never gonna harm myself, but she got nervous.''
So his mom saw him with a gun and just automatically assumed he was going to kill himself? Isn't that a HUGE leap in logic? Isn't there maybe 10 other scenarios a mother might think about first before going to "he is going to kill himself," unless that mother had a preconceived notion for one reason or another her child would actually try to kill himself? How the hell can anyone actually believe this reason? I have seen tons of people with guns in my life and I have never thought one of them was going to kill himself because I knew they weren't potentially suicidal. Now if I thought someone carrying was a gun was potentially suicidal I may think differently...so maybe this situation wasn't blown out of proportion.
Of course Peter King buys this reason. He is either not smart enough to question it or wants to be friends with Vince Young so he intentionally believes his bullshit.
I lied. One really final note from 35-34, unless I find something else that deserves to be in here.
First Peter calls it "The Call" and now he is just giving us the score of the game. I know the media is trying hard to create super duper special memories for all of us and to make this Patriots-Colts game into an absolute classic, but let's just take a break from trying so hard. It was a good game, every Colts-Patriots game doesn't have to be a classic.
The Fine Fifteen
1. New Orleans (10-0). Don't look now, but Drew Brees has a new weapon who's pretty good -- wideout Robert Meachem,
He's not new. He is an underachieving first round pick. I think I would look good playing wide receiver with Brees as the quarterback.
Quote of the Week I
"Gutsy game by the kid.''
-- Text message from Detroit coach Jim Schwartz to me an hour after Matthew Stafford, being treated for a mangled left shoulder, broke away from team medics and made an unauthorized entry into the Lions-Browns game for the final play, completing the winning touchdown pass for a 38-37 win.
Wasn't it just earlier in this exact same MMQB Peter King did a couple paragraphs about how Roger Goodell is getting a study together with the Army to see how long it takes football players and soldiers to get back on the field after an injury...and Peter indicated this was a good thing? It's a little bit hypocritical to write about that and favor it and then make Matt Stafford who had an injury with unknown severity a hero for going right back on the field? Not to mention he is the franchise quarterback. It's heroic in a football sense, but also pretty damn risky.
Quote of the Week III
"There are New England football fans who'd support Belichick if he pledged to eradicate indoor plumbing.''
-- Boston Globe columnist Dan Shaughnessy, on the local loyalty Bill Belichick inspires.
Thank God Peter and Dan Shaughnessy are here to tell me how much New England likes Bill Belichick. I tend to forget if I am not reminded every single day what a great coach and inspiring leader he is. Fortunately, they are here with blanket coverage of this.
Isn't there a curse or something else Dan Shaughnessy has to go cover? Doesn't it say a lot about Peter King that he said he moved to Boston partly to read Dan Shaughnessy?
MVP Watch
2. Brett Favre, QB, Minnesota. We might be watching the most amazing year of his ridiculous career.
Brett Favre is great. We all get this. He also plays for a team that was very good last year and would have been very good with or without him this year. While Peter is so damn focused on the awesomeness of Brett Favre, I wish he would also focus on the awesomeness of the team around Brett Favre...and more importantly, how much Adrian Peterson helps Favre.
Enjoyable/Aggravating Travel Note of the Week
I Weep For Humanity Dept.: The NBC Football Night in America crew took in the Panthers-Rangers game Saturday night at Madison Square Garden. Entering the building, I saw eight 18ish Ranger-clad guys and gals posing for a photo, with what I assumed was a passerby who agreed to take their photo. All posed with middle fingers pointing at the camera.
Oh the horror! If I saw Peter King and the NBC Football Night in America crew enter any building I would probably start flipping everyone off too.
Peter had some sort of contest that allowed one of his Twitter followers to write about any topic of choice and Peter would publish it. A guy named Tim wrote several paragraphs on why he prefers to watch a game on television rather than go to a game. I can explain why in a sentence.
Everything is too expensive, parking is a hassle, it takes up nearly your entire day, you can say whatever you want to at the television in frustration at home and don't have to worry about a kid hearing you (unless it is your kid), you have to brave the elements (whatever they may be) and you really can't see everything that happens at a football game.
f. I don't care what the Bears say. If they keep going down the drain and Jay Cutler's mentor is on the unemployment line, they have to look at Shanahan.
Yes, because those two had so much success together in Denver, they need to try and put another .500 team together in Chicago.
3. I think Eagles defensive end Trent Cole is one of the 10 most underappreciated players in the NFL. That's what you call a guy who's had sacks in eight of Philly's 10 games, yet won't get a sniff for the Pro Bowl.
I don't think Trent Cole could ever be as unappreciated as Antonio Gates is though. Whatever happened to Antonio Gates and why don't we talk about him more?
c. Who'd have ever thought Julian Edelman would be this kind of receiver? Looks like he's been catching passes for seven years, not seven months.
I thought he could be this kind of receiver because Bill Belichick fucking drafted him and that means he is going to be in the Pro Bowl forever. Peter has a firm grasp on the New England Patriots depth chart and has mentioned Edelman several times this year but last week he couldn't seem to remember why we don't talk about Antonio Gates more, yet he knows all about Julian Edelman. I find this interesting.
Also, Edelman was a quarterback in college, it's not like he had never seen or caught a football prior to this year. He's making a good transition to receiver but let's temper this excitement a little can we?
d. The Saints made up quite nicely for their injured cornerbacks -- Tracy Porter and Jabari Greer -- in Tampa Bay, holding Josh Freeman to 126 yards passing and picking him off three times. Good job by Randall Gay.
Great job stopping that rookie quarterback New Orleans. It's always hard to stop rookie quarterbacks and you certainly wouldn't expect a team that was undefeated to be able to do this.
e. The Broncos are cooked. Kaput. Never has a defense seemed like such a mirage as the D of the first six Denver games.
But I thought Josh McDaniels was a genius and the Broncos were going to be good this year? Isn't that what I was told in MMQB at the beginning of the year? Bill Simmons isn't bragging so loudly about his underdog Denver Broncos pick now is he? It's funny how he bragged about that for the first couple weeks when the Broncos were winning but now he is strangely silent on the issue.
7. I think you have to sit Mark Sanchez, Rex Ryan. The game's overwhelming for him right now. His last pick Sunday in Foxboro was just plain stupid, if not panicky. Time for Kellen Clemens.
I find it hilarious the two biggest storylines of the early part of the NFL season, Mark Sanchez and Denver's rise, are now completely over and both the player and the team have gone back to the level we expected. Should the media, and Peter King, feel stupid about saying all the wonderful and hyperbolic things about Sanchez and the Broncos? Probably, but that doesn't mean next year they won't overreact to a rookie quarterback's first couple of successful games and think another team will win the Super Bowl after starting the year off by winning a few games.
Never underestimate the media's ability to hype up a situation and then quietly never mention they were wrong in hyping up the situation when it all goes to hell.
How interesting would it have been if Dungy coached with Parcells and Belichick? Would they have become smitten with his coaching ability? Would he have joined Belichick's staff in Cleveland, or gone on the long and winding trail through the '90s with Parcells, or stayed in New York and impressed George Young and Wellington Mara enough to succeed Ray Handley after that debacle? Instead, he ended up in staredowns with Belichick for seven years in the best rivalry in the league. I love these what-if games.
I hate what-if games.
c. You call that a lot of Funkhauser? Come on, Larry David. When I say I want Funkhauser, I mean not just three or four lines.
I wonder if Peter King knows they shot this episode months ago or that Larry David doesn't really look to him for comedic ideas? Probably not.
f. Until Saturday, I'd never heard of Oregon quarterback Jeremiah Masoli. But I have a feeling I'll be typing his name an awful lot in the coming year. What a football game that was in Tucson. Three touchdowns running by Masoli, three passing. What a cool cucumber.
Who says Peter King has an East Coast bias? Just because he hadn't heard of the quarterback for the #8 team in the nation, and the only team on the West Coast in the Top 15 doesn't mean he has an East Coast bias. (End of sarcasm)
We don't need Peter King's opinion of Jeremiah Masoli. It's not like my life is incomplete without Peter King chiming in on what he thinks about Masoli. As his habit, Peter is a few months late in recognizing the skill of Masoli and then he makes a proclamation about what a great player he is. We know already.
It was really awesome to see the Arizona fans line up to rush the field and then the team lost. What a stupid thing to do for those fans. It's not like Arizona had the game in hand and Oregon pulled out a miracle, Oregon was driving down the field, had timeouts left and still those dumbasses climbed over barriers and got ready to rush the field. It was the definition of premature. The second I saw the Arizona fans start to crowd the field I wanted Oregon to win the game...though preferably by more than 6 points.
j. Sunday night, 10:47, walking back from NBC to my midtown hotel. Phone rings. It's Brian Hyland, my former compadre on HBO's Inside the NFL. He's at the final Bruce Springsteen and the E Street Band concert of this tour (forever, perhaps?) in Buffalo, and he's now considerate enough to call me as "Tenth Avenue Freezeout'' begins, and he keeps the phone on for the first eight minutes of the song. Thanks, Brian. Not the best sound quality, but I'm a beggar, and I'm not choosy.
This is pathetic. I can see maybe listening to a few seconds of the concert and then telling his good friend Brian to have a good night and go about his life, but to listen to 8 minutes of a song through a cell phone...it's not like Peter had never been to a Springsteen concert before either. This is a bit of overkill in my mind.
If Peter had to choose between talking to Brett Favre on the phone for 8 minutes or hearing 8 minutes of a Bruce Springsteen song, I wonder which one he would choose?
Well, I think Peter got 2-3 good mail bag questions out of this MMQB.
Monday Night Football games aside, Peter King is back again with his MMQB and it's an ode to "Matts." If your first name begins with Matt, Peter loves you (except Schaub). What do we learn today, does Peter think this Ricky Williams player could be a breakout player this year and more importantly, will Peter be able to get a full 2 questions for his Tuesday mailbag based on this column? We'll see I guess.
Talking with commissioner Roger Goodell, while he was getting his makeup wiped off in our NBC Football Night in America studio Sunday night after his Eagles-Bears halftime appearance ...
"You know how great you have it in the NFL this year?'' I asked. "Your TV ratings are totally through the roof, and here we are today, worst game of the year, Cleveland-Detroit, and it might be the best game of the year.''
That was an exciting game, no one can doubt that, but was it the "best game of the year?" Cleveland scored 37 points! Not the Cleveland Cavaliers, but the Cleveland Browns. Detroit scored 38 points. It had an exciting and a little bizarre finish but I don't know if I would call a game where there was little-to-no defense played between two very bad football teams as "the best game of the year." We all know I am about the little guy and Peter covering each team, but this game didn't strike me as football played at it's highest level for extended periods of time so there is no need to get overly excited about it. Of course that won't stop Peter. I am torn here, because I like it when Peter pays attention to other teams but I have to also acknowledge these are two bad teams who played each other.
Last week it was a 35-34 game between the Colts and Patriots that captured America.
As much as it would please me to argue this point, we did talk about this game A LOT. Maybe "captured America" is a bit dramatic and overdoing it. The game didn't exactly capture America, it was Bill Belichick's fourth down call that piqued the interest of America and the world (some parts of the world at least. England still doesn't give a shit).
We'll start there, then meander through the play Kansas City coach Todd Haley drew up in the dirt (slight exaggeration) to beat the World Champions.
Don't write it if it's an exaggeration. In journalism that is called a "slight lie."
Before Stafford and I started talking, I could hear the labored breathing and slight grunts -- I assume from Stafford -- as the harness went on his shoulder. X-rays were negative, but you could read his lips after he threw the winning touchdown and went to the sideline in intense pain. "It's out! It's out!'' he said, meaning his shoulder popped out of the socket.
If this were Brett Favre we would hear about this injury at the press conference after the game, in the interviews in the locker room, possibly through the week after the game, and of course he would tell Peter all about it.
"I don't know how I played today, my shoulder was out of socket. I'm not a hero, just a normal guy who played a game of football with his shoulder ripped out of socket because I love this game so much and couldn't let my teammates down. Is that microphone on? You are recording my heroic statement, right?"
Now I understand the wounded Lions fans. I hear from so many of you. The hopelessness, the anti-Matt Millenism, the surrender, the longing simply to be relevant again. And Goodell's right. This might have been something big right here. Not saying the Lions are on the road to contention. But they're mad as hell, and they're not going to take the losing anymore,
I hate to be a wet blanket, but they beat the Cleveland Browns...and gave up 37 points...at home...to the Cleveland Browns. The defense of the Lions gave up 37 points to the Browns and I am supposed to think this means the Lions have turned a corner because the game ended excitingly? Really the only statement this game makes is, "we are not as bad as the Cleveland Browns are."
And so that's why I choose this morning to write about the second win of the Detroit Lions at the top of the column, rather than the 10th victory for the Saints and the Colts.
Because you literally write about those two teams every single week? That would be the reason I would use to not cover these games extensively in MMQB on this date.
We all know the reason Peter wrote about the Cleveland-Detroit game this week is because, for some reason, this is the game he watched in it's entirety this weekend. That's what he does. He watches a game in it's entirety and then writes his column about that game and fills in the rest of the MMQB with highlights he was able to glean from some other games. If the game he didn't watch in it's entirety is the best game of the day, he calls and gets quotes from that game from the players and then writes about it. That's how Peter rolls.
The game came down to two plays. You've seen them, I'm sure. With eight seconds left and Cleveland up 37-31 (thanks to Brady Quinn's four touchdown passes)
I thought Brady Quinn should have been starting all year for the Browns, so I am a sort of Quinn fan...but he threw 4 touchdown passes in this game against the Lions defense and he has never shown this ability throughout his entire career before this game. This is not an indication the Lions are back on the right track.
Bang! Mosley drove Stafford as hard as a quarterback can be driven into the ground. The ball fluttered into the air, right into the arms of safety Brodney Pool.
Interception. Ballgame.
Flags.So the very definition of "clutch," Matt Stafford, actually threw an interception that would have lost the game if it hadn't been for a lucky flag? Let's just ignore this and focus on his heroism. We did it for years with Favre.
"I was flat on my back on the sidelines, and the doctors were trying to figure out what was wrong with my shoulder,'' said Stafford. "But I heard, 'Timeout Cleveland,' and then I knew I could come back in.''
And the Lions got lucky when Mangini coached his team to a loss by calling a timeout letting Stafford back in the game. If these two plays don't scream "high quality football" then I don't know know what is wrong with you. We have porous defense, clutchly thrown interceptions, and piss poor coaching. It was like the Super Bowl, just not televised as widely.
Meanwhile, Schwartz hollered at his medical staff: "Is he good to go?'' And one of the doctors said no, and Schwartz asked what was wrong, and the doc said he didn't know because they hadn't had time to examine him yet.
"The kid put himself back in the game,'' Schwartz said.
Brilliant move by Schwartz to allow his franchise quarterback, who was injured but no one had an idea what was wrong with him, to just go back in the game. Brilliant.
Even the medical staff of Detroit is incompetent.
The Chiefs install their red-zone pass plays on Thursday mornings. Usually they're pulled out of the phone-book-thick playbook, plays that were taught in minicamps, practiced in training camp and used, most likely, a few times previously during the season. But last Thursday, Haley walked into the offensive team meeting and told his team he had something new to use against the Steelers down near the goal line -- a shovel pass to running back Jamaal Charles while the rest of the team was in max-protect mode.
This was the play Peter thought Todd Haley had drawn in the dirt. To Peter a shovel pass near the goal line is winging it. To the rest of the world this is an actual, smart football play, but to Peter this is crazy freelancing.
As Keith Olbermann said Sunday night, "Ryan Succop for the win, and oh, don't you look nice tonight, Mrs. Cleaver.''
This statement is not funny, not witty, not clever...I don't care about Keith Olbermann's politics or anything else about him. He is a smug asshole and if he truly ceased to be on this earth (maybe be shot into space or something) then I would feel slightly better knowing there is one less smug, self impressed douchebag alive.
Football and war really do have something in common, other than the cliches.
No they don't.
Good story by Jay Glazer on FOX's pregame show about how independent neurologists will soon be employed at all NFL games, so that a team physician paid by a franchise won't have a conflict of interest about whether to allow an injured player back in the game.
How interesting considering Peter King was just lauding Matt Stafford for coming back in the game before the trainers had a chance to check him for his injury and now he is lecturing on the importance of proper safety in the NFL. Gregg Easterbrook is right about this part. Football guys lecture us on how important football safety is and then praise individuals who come back from injury quickly and ignore any health concerns there may be.
He said he thinks organized offseason conditioning has spiraled out of control. (And bully for him on this -- it's ridiculous how year-round a job playing and coaching has become.) "I'm a firm believer that players are overworked in the offseason,'' Goodell said. "They probably need to get away from the game a little bit more. And when they're away, they probably work harder.
I wonder why Peter is all for this? Probably because it means he will have some more time off during the summer. Lazy...
But what makes Minnesota dangerous is that Brett Favre's playing like he played in his three-year MVP run a decade and a half ago. In fact, my Twitter followers are appealing for me to have Favre pass Peyton Manning in my MVP Watch below, and if he keeps this up, I'm going to have a very tough decision at the end of the year.
I really, really, really doubt Peter King's Twitter followers are begging for him to have Brett Favre pass Peyton Manning in the MVP Watch. There are probably 9 Vikings fans who want this to happen. This is beyond absurd. Brett Favre has the best running back in the NFL AND one of the best defenses in the NFL on his side, while Peyton Manning IS the Colts. The Vikings won their division and made the playoffs without Favre last year, sure he has added value to the team, but there is no way based on that information anyone can truly believe Favre is more valuable than Peyton Manning. What are the Colts without Manning, 2-8 right now?
Watching Favre through 10 weeks, I'm starting to think he's going to make it through 16 games, and more. His groin strain doesn't seem to be bothering him.
Yes, Peter King just extended his streak of talking about Brett Favre in every MMQB since last December (that's how far back I chose to go). The reason Favre's groin strain doesn't bother him is because it likely doesn't exist. It's hard to be affected by an injury that doesn't exist or at least isn't as severe as Favre likes to play up.
Clearly, it's helped Favre to have the best offensive supporting cast he's ever had. The line keeps him clean, he has the best all-around back in football, Adrian Peterson, behind him, and he has three deep threats (Percy Harvin, Sidney Rice and Bernard Berrian), the kind of depth at receiver he didn't have with the Packers or Jets.
So because Favre has a better supporting cast he should be the MVP? This doesn't make sense. Peter has spent this entire NFL season telling everyone and anyone who will listen how Peyton Manning is doing such a great job with the nobodies on his offense and now he wants to just forget that and give the MVP to Favre while acknowledging the supporting cast around Favre. It's madness.
Aaron Rodgers is cleaning up his act in the pocket.
First eight games: 37 sacks, five interceptions. Last two games: six sacks, no interceptions. There's no question Rodgers was simply holding onto the ball too long, and his leaky offensive line -- particularly at right tackle -- was getting him bowled over.
I like how even thought there are other variables as to why Aaron Rodgers was getting sacked, like the types of routes being run by his receivers, his offensive line's play, and yes, Rodgers holding onto the ball too long, Peter chooses to focus completely on the "holding onto the ball too long" as to why Rodgers is getting sacked so much. It's interesting Peter doesn't say the offensive line isn't giving Rodgers enough time, he says Rodgers is holding onto the ball too long and the offensive line is not protecting him because of this...he just slightly puts more of the blame on Rodgers instead of the offensive line.A couple of times last year, when he was most frustrated, Vince Young would text Kobe Bryant, who had become something of a mentor. He'd write something like, "Man, I wanna play so bad. What do I do?''
Don't tell people you hate football and act like you want to kill yourself. You could also try to get traded and then pretend you are cool with your teammates when you are forced to play with them because the team wouldn't trade you." That would be Kobe Bryant's advice.
Those demands came to a head early last season, when his worried mother reached out for help after seeing Young leave his house with a gun.
"That was blown out of proportion,'' said Young. "My mom never saw me with a pistol before, and when she did, she got nervous. I have a pistol for protection. I was never gonna harm myself, but she got nervous.''
So his mom saw him with a gun and just automatically assumed he was going to kill himself? Isn't that a HUGE leap in logic? Isn't there maybe 10 other scenarios a mother might think about first before going to "he is going to kill himself," unless that mother had a preconceived notion for one reason or another her child would actually try to kill himself? How the hell can anyone actually believe this reason? I have seen tons of people with guns in my life and I have never thought one of them was going to kill himself because I knew they weren't potentially suicidal. Now if I thought someone carrying was a gun was potentially suicidal I may think differently...so maybe this situation wasn't blown out of proportion.
Of course Peter King buys this reason. He is either not smart enough to question it or wants to be friends with Vince Young so he intentionally believes his bullshit.
I lied. One really final note from 35-34, unless I find something else that deserves to be in here.
First Peter calls it "The Call" and now he is just giving us the score of the game. I know the media is trying hard to create super duper special memories for all of us and to make this Patriots-Colts game into an absolute classic, but let's just take a break from trying so hard. It was a good game, every Colts-Patriots game doesn't have to be a classic.
The Fine Fifteen
1. New Orleans (10-0). Don't look now, but Drew Brees has a new weapon who's pretty good -- wideout Robert Meachem,
He's not new. He is an underachieving first round pick. I think I would look good playing wide receiver with Brees as the quarterback.
Quote of the Week I
"Gutsy game by the kid.''
-- Text message from Detroit coach Jim Schwartz to me an hour after Matthew Stafford, being treated for a mangled left shoulder, broke away from team medics and made an unauthorized entry into the Lions-Browns game for the final play, completing the winning touchdown pass for a 38-37 win.
Wasn't it just earlier in this exact same MMQB Peter King did a couple paragraphs about how Roger Goodell is getting a study together with the Army to see how long it takes football players and soldiers to get back on the field after an injury...and Peter indicated this was a good thing? It's a little bit hypocritical to write about that and favor it and then make Matt Stafford who had an injury with unknown severity a hero for going right back on the field? Not to mention he is the franchise quarterback. It's heroic in a football sense, but also pretty damn risky.
Quote of the Week III
"There are New England football fans who'd support Belichick if he pledged to eradicate indoor plumbing.''
-- Boston Globe columnist Dan Shaughnessy, on the local loyalty Bill Belichick inspires.
Thank God Peter and Dan Shaughnessy are here to tell me how much New England likes Bill Belichick. I tend to forget if I am not reminded every single day what a great coach and inspiring leader he is. Fortunately, they are here with blanket coverage of this.
Isn't there a curse or something else Dan Shaughnessy has to go cover? Doesn't it say a lot about Peter King that he said he moved to Boston partly to read Dan Shaughnessy?
MVP Watch
2. Brett Favre, QB, Minnesota. We might be watching the most amazing year of his ridiculous career.
Brett Favre is great. We all get this. He also plays for a team that was very good last year and would have been very good with or without him this year. While Peter is so damn focused on the awesomeness of Brett Favre, I wish he would also focus on the awesomeness of the team around Brett Favre...and more importantly, how much Adrian Peterson helps Favre.
Enjoyable/Aggravating Travel Note of the Week
I Weep For Humanity Dept.: The NBC Football Night in America crew took in the Panthers-Rangers game Saturday night at Madison Square Garden. Entering the building, I saw eight 18ish Ranger-clad guys and gals posing for a photo, with what I assumed was a passerby who agreed to take their photo. All posed with middle fingers pointing at the camera.
Oh the horror! If I saw Peter King and the NBC Football Night in America crew enter any building I would probably start flipping everyone off too.
Peter had some sort of contest that allowed one of his Twitter followers to write about any topic of choice and Peter would publish it. A guy named Tim wrote several paragraphs on why he prefers to watch a game on television rather than go to a game. I can explain why in a sentence.
Everything is too expensive, parking is a hassle, it takes up nearly your entire day, you can say whatever you want to at the television in frustration at home and don't have to worry about a kid hearing you (unless it is your kid), you have to brave the elements (whatever they may be) and you really can't see everything that happens at a football game.
f. I don't care what the Bears say. If they keep going down the drain and Jay Cutler's mentor is on the unemployment line, they have to look at Shanahan.
Yes, because those two had so much success together in Denver, they need to try and put another .500 team together in Chicago.
3. I think Eagles defensive end Trent Cole is one of the 10 most underappreciated players in the NFL. That's what you call a guy who's had sacks in eight of Philly's 10 games, yet won't get a sniff for the Pro Bowl.
I don't think Trent Cole could ever be as unappreciated as Antonio Gates is though. Whatever happened to Antonio Gates and why don't we talk about him more?
c. Who'd have ever thought Julian Edelman would be this kind of receiver? Looks like he's been catching passes for seven years, not seven months.
I thought he could be this kind of receiver because Bill Belichick fucking drafted him and that means he is going to be in the Pro Bowl forever. Peter has a firm grasp on the New England Patriots depth chart and has mentioned Edelman several times this year but last week he couldn't seem to remember why we don't talk about Antonio Gates more, yet he knows all about Julian Edelman. I find this interesting.
Also, Edelman was a quarterback in college, it's not like he had never seen or caught a football prior to this year. He's making a good transition to receiver but let's temper this excitement a little can we?
d. The Saints made up quite nicely for their injured cornerbacks -- Tracy Porter and Jabari Greer -- in Tampa Bay, holding Josh Freeman to 126 yards passing and picking him off three times. Good job by Randall Gay.
Great job stopping that rookie quarterback New Orleans. It's always hard to stop rookie quarterbacks and you certainly wouldn't expect a team that was undefeated to be able to do this.
e. The Broncos are cooked. Kaput. Never has a defense seemed like such a mirage as the D of the first six Denver games.
But I thought Josh McDaniels was a genius and the Broncos were going to be good this year? Isn't that what I was told in MMQB at the beginning of the year? Bill Simmons isn't bragging so loudly about his underdog Denver Broncos pick now is he? It's funny how he bragged about that for the first couple weeks when the Broncos were winning but now he is strangely silent on the issue.
7. I think you have to sit Mark Sanchez, Rex Ryan. The game's overwhelming for him right now. His last pick Sunday in Foxboro was just plain stupid, if not panicky. Time for Kellen Clemens.
I find it hilarious the two biggest storylines of the early part of the NFL season, Mark Sanchez and Denver's rise, are now completely over and both the player and the team have gone back to the level we expected. Should the media, and Peter King, feel stupid about saying all the wonderful and hyperbolic things about Sanchez and the Broncos? Probably, but that doesn't mean next year they won't overreact to a rookie quarterback's first couple of successful games and think another team will win the Super Bowl after starting the year off by winning a few games.
Never underestimate the media's ability to hype up a situation and then quietly never mention they were wrong in hyping up the situation when it all goes to hell.
How interesting would it have been if Dungy coached with Parcells and Belichick? Would they have become smitten with his coaching ability? Would he have joined Belichick's staff in Cleveland, or gone on the long and winding trail through the '90s with Parcells, or stayed in New York and impressed George Young and Wellington Mara enough to succeed Ray Handley after that debacle? Instead, he ended up in staredowns with Belichick for seven years in the best rivalry in the league. I love these what-if games.
I hate what-if games.
c. You call that a lot of Funkhauser? Come on, Larry David. When I say I want Funkhauser, I mean not just three or four lines.
I wonder if Peter King knows they shot this episode months ago or that Larry David doesn't really look to him for comedic ideas? Probably not.
f. Until Saturday, I'd never heard of Oregon quarterback Jeremiah Masoli. But I have a feeling I'll be typing his name an awful lot in the coming year. What a football game that was in Tucson. Three touchdowns running by Masoli, three passing. What a cool cucumber.
Who says Peter King has an East Coast bias? Just because he hadn't heard of the quarterback for the #8 team in the nation, and the only team on the West Coast in the Top 15 doesn't mean he has an East Coast bias. (End of sarcasm)
We don't need Peter King's opinion of Jeremiah Masoli. It's not like my life is incomplete without Peter King chiming in on what he thinks about Masoli. As his habit, Peter is a few months late in recognizing the skill of Masoli and then he makes a proclamation about what a great player he is. We know already.
It was really awesome to see the Arizona fans line up to rush the field and then the team lost. What a stupid thing to do for those fans. It's not like Arizona had the game in hand and Oregon pulled out a miracle, Oregon was driving down the field, had timeouts left and still those dumbasses climbed over barriers and got ready to rush the field. It was the definition of premature. The second I saw the Arizona fans start to crowd the field I wanted Oregon to win the game...though preferably by more than 6 points.
j. Sunday night, 10:47, walking back from NBC to my midtown hotel. Phone rings. It's Brian Hyland, my former compadre on HBO's Inside the NFL. He's at the final Bruce Springsteen and the E Street Band concert of this tour (forever, perhaps?) in Buffalo, and he's now considerate enough to call me as "Tenth Avenue Freezeout'' begins, and he keeps the phone on for the first eight minutes of the song. Thanks, Brian. Not the best sound quality, but I'm a beggar, and I'm not choosy.
This is pathetic. I can see maybe listening to a few seconds of the concert and then telling his good friend Brian to have a good night and go about his life, but to listen to 8 minutes of a song through a cell phone...it's not like Peter had never been to a Springsteen concert before either. This is a bit of overkill in my mind.
If Peter had to choose between talking to Brett Favre on the phone for 8 minutes or hearing 8 minutes of a Bruce Springsteen song, I wonder which one he would choose?
Well, I think Peter got 2-3 good mail bag questions out of this MMQB.
Saturday, November 21, 2009
12 comments A 16 Game NFL Season Is Enough Games Already
Ross Tucker has written an article favoring an 18 game schedule for the NFL. I personally had not thought too much about it before this article was written, but logically from every perspective other than financially it doesn’t seem to make much sense to make the NFL season two games longer. I would have to say I am against it. I have respect for those who have good reasons to be “for” an 18 game schedule, except when those people use horrible reasoning to support their opinion. Ross Tucker uses horrible reasoning.
Thanks to Shah8 for pointing out the article to me, I probably would not have found it if it hadn’t been pointed out to me.
Before I get to Ross Tucker’s latest “column,” I wanted to focus briefly on something Peter King friend Donnie “Brasco” Banks wrote 5 years ago. As I was surfing CNNSI.com, I saw that Don Banks wrote a redo of the April 2004 NFL Draft on November 2004…just 7 months after the draft. I thought it would be great to read and it did not let me down. Here’s a little hint to those sportswriters who love to write “do-over” drafts, and that hint is that it really, really helps if you wait 2-3 years before doing the redo draft because you are running the risk that your new draft will look as bad, if not worse, than the original. That’s the case for Don Banks “do-over” draft. I will be only covering the first 6 picks of the 2004 draft, but it’s great, I promise.
1. New York Giants- Eli Manning
Banks’ pick- Ben Roethlisberger
My pick- Ben Roethlisberger. I can’t argue too much with this redo pick because in my mind there is a case that could be made for Rivers, Manning, and Roethlisberger. It depends on what you like in a quarterback. If you like assholes at the quarterback position you take Rivers, if you like a guy who has a quarterback pedigree you take Manning and if you want a guy who seems to run around in the backfield trying to find a receiver you take Roethlisberger.
2. Oakland- Robert Gallery
Banks’ pick- Roy Williams (Texas)
Tackle Robert Gallery is fine, but the Raiders love speed guys, and Williams has been the draft's most impressive receiver.
Sadly this is a completely inaccurate comment, I am pretty sure that Larry Fitzgerald is the most impressive receiver in this draft. The Raiders should have taken Steven Jackson and been set at the running back position for the next decade. The biggest thing to remember is that Robert Gallery is NOT fine in this spot. This #2 pick redo is the best reason to wait 2-3 years before evaluating a team’s draft. It makes no sense to wait only 7 months and then try to redo a draft based on less than a full season of football.
With him, Oakland would be loaded at a position that would allow the vertical passing game Al Davis loves.
No they wouldn’t. They would have more draft picks right now from the Cowboys after the Raiders traded Williams to them in 2008.
My pick- Steven Jackson
3. Arizona- Larry Fitzgerald
Banks’ pick: Eli Manning
Dennis Green didn't want to take a franchise quarterback at No. 3 the first time around. But considering how much he had to pay receiver Larry Fitzgerald, he should have.
Yes, the best reasoning for not choosing a franchise changing wide receiver is because he is expensive. Go cheap! That’s the best way to go. Again, this choice is another reason to wait more than 7 months to redo an NFL draft. I like how the only reasoning Don Banks uses here is how much money Larry Fitzgerald wanted as the #3 pick. Can we really trust the opinion of someone who ranked Roy Williams above Larry Fitzgerald after seeing them both play for less than a full season of football?
My pick- Larry Fitzgerald
4. Chargers- Philip Rivers
Banks’ pick- Robert Gallery
With Brees holding the fort, the Chargers can afford to address their sorry state of affairs at offensive tackle. Gallery hasn't wowed people in Oakland yet, but he's going to be a 10-year starter for somebody.
You definitely don’t want the #4 pick in the draft to not “wow” anyone and just be a 10-year starter. Even acknowledging that Brees may still be in San Diego at this time in a "do-over" world, Robert Gallery wasn’t the best choice at offensive tackle. Shawn Andrews or Jason Peters may be that guy.
How about a big guy in the middle to help stop the run? Maybe Vince Wilfork or Tommie Harris? If that’s not good enough maybe the Chargers should have just taken Chris Snee or Jared Allen.
My pick- Vince Wilfork/Tommie Harris (I can’t choose, but since it is a 3-4 in San Diego maybe Wilfork is the guy)
5. Washington- Sean Taylor
Banks’ pick- Philip Rivers
My pick- Philip Rivers
I can’t argue too much with this pick. Rivers would have solved a major problem in Washington over the past 5 years. Taylor was actually a really good pick, but even forgetting his tragic death, a quarterback was the better choice here.
6. Cleveland- Kellen Winslow
Banks’ pick- Jonathan Vilma
We'll let the Browns trade places with the Lions again. Given Cleveland's situation at linebacker, Vilma, who has been a man in the middle for the Jets, is too good to pass up.
Linebacker has not been a problem for the Browns since then and it wasn’t a huge problem at this point either. What would have turned this Browns team around and possibly made them respectable? Think they could go for a quarterback right now?
My pick: Eli Manning
As you can see, it doesn’t make sense to redo a draft less than a couple years after the draft actually occurred because then the redo is still as inaccurate as the original draft. Don Banks has Robert Gallery, Roy Williams, and Jonathan Vilma as being in his top 6 picks of the 2004 NFL Draft. He’s way off. I would take a number of players who came out of this draft before Gallery and Williams. Guys like Jared Allen, Michael Turner, Wes Welker, Winslow, Will Smith, Chris Snee, Bob Sanders, and Nick Hardwick just to name a few. This is why we should wait a couple years before doing a “do-over” draft, so it doesn’t look like a mess like this one did.
Now onto Ross Tucker’s latest contribution/detriment to sportswriting and journalism. If you remember, he thinks the 18 game NFL season is a good idea. I don’t know if a mean, ol’ editor made him write this column, but I pretty much disagree with every point he makes.
Week 10 in the NFL was brutal. Stellar offensive tackles Jordan Gross of Carolina and Marc Colombo of Dallas were lost for the season with broken legs. Quarterback Kyle Orton went down with an ankle injury, which ultimately doomed Denver in its loss to Washington.
The week before that Thomas Davis went down and now Ronnie Brown is out for the season. Two weeks ago Owen Daniels was lost for the season, Bob Sanders was also lost recently for the season, and it seems like every single year the Pro Bowl has only half of the elected participants take place in the game for various reasons…injuries included. Injuries are part of the game, but they also take a lot away from the game because teams and fans are not able to see their favorite players get injured.
I am the one last year who had little sympathy for the Patriots last year when Tom Brady got injured because that is why you have backups, in case of injury, but to ignore the league wide effect of injuries on players would just be ignorant for me to do. There is a difference between freak injuries occurring that knocks players out of the game for extended periods of time and intentionally extending the season and increasing the chance a player will get hurt in those last two games or the playoffs. I love football, but I am also not a moron. I know the more games that are played in a season, the better chance my favorite team will be depleted by injuries. Call me crazy but I don’t like that.
Running backs Cedric Benson, Michael Turner, Brian Westbrook and Ronnie Brown left their games with injuries and didn't return. Even the Monday nighter wasn't spared as Ravens safety Haruki Nakamura and Browns wideout Josh Cribbs were taken off the field on carts.
And against that backdrop, the NFL is seriously considering adding two more regular season games?
I could not agree more. I love football, but it is a violent sport and the toll the game takes on the human body is incredible. It’s bad enough that ex-NFL players are having physical problems, but think of it this way, if a player plays in the league for 8 years under an 18 game schedule he is essentially playing an extra full season under the "old" 16 game schedule we currently have. It sounds like simple statement, and I admit it is, but my point is that this is going to conceivably shorten careers and seasons.
Really? Well, I'm all for it.
I have previously called Ross Tucker an idiot here and here. I apologize to him for this. What he wrote there was not truly idiotic. I was overreacting. What he is writing in this column is actually idiotic. I say this because I am “for” a lot of things in this world, but I know logically they don’t make sense so I don’t write columns supporting them.
I want 32 games of the NFL and NCAA college football per year, I want to watch Tommy Hanson pitch every night, I want to write a really long column on this blog 2-3 times a day, and I want to redo the 1996 World Series. I am “for” all of these things but logic and knowing the limits of man’s physical ability prevents me from advocating these things publicly. They can’t happen. I wish the same reasoning applied for Ross Tucker.
By now you've heard the arguments that a longer season would decimate rosters so completely that playoff games would feature teams that were a shell of themselves. That it could conceivably shorten the careers of some marquee players.
Yes, I have heard all of these things and as much as I like to call people out for being involved in a good old fashion panic, these are really concerns the NFL, the union, the fans and Ross Tucker should have. It would shorten the careers of marquee players and it would cause injuries to and greatly negatively affect playoff teams. The NFL playoff team that hasn’t lost at least 1-2 quality starters would be the exception in my mind. These are real concerns, not counterpoints to the 18 game schedule argument. Injury concerns are a reality, we can’t ignore this.
But I think there are a few reasons additional games might be worth it.
Because Ross Tucker would have something to write about two extra weeks of the year? Enough players might get hurt a team could get desperate enough to call Ross Tucker and want his services on the offensive line? Please tell me someone is forcing him to write this column. I need to be told this.
New stars emerge. It happens every year without fail, and it usually happens as a result of a front-line player getting injured.
This is the bad reasoning and this is Ross Tucker’s #1 point. You could use this same reasoning as to why it is good soldiers are killed in wars.
“Sure people die, but then other soldiers step up into the dead soldier’s role after a while and they could be even smarter and a better leader than the original dead soldier! It's not always bad because it helps other soldiers become leaders.”
I guarantee more frontline players are hurt forcing backups who DON’T become stars into starting roles than frontline players get hurt and then the backup comes in and becomes a star. New stars emerging is an exception to the rule.
The emergence last season of quarterback Matt Cassel after Tom Brady tore an ACL is an easy example, but there are others. For a player who wasn't a high draft choice, an injury to the player in front of him on the depth chart is often the only way he'll get an opportunity to showcase his ability in a game-on-the-line situation.
If the team is lucky this COULD happen, but more often than not the player who replaces the injured player isn’t worthy of a starting spot and that is why he is a backup. It’s not like Matt Cassel stepped into a shitty situation last year, the Patriots had just come off an 18-1 season.
This is a bad example.
Heck, who knows when Brady himself would have gotten an opportunity were it not for the hit the Jets' Mo Lewis put on Drew Bledsoe in 2001. The same holds true for James Harrison of the Steelers and Pierre Thomas of the Saints.
So there are four examples in the last 8 years of players getting injured and a second-line player coming in and outperforming the original player. This is supposed to be the irrefutable evidence we are looking for that supports an 18 game schedule? So 4 examples in the last 8 years is supposed to impress me? How about all the times an injury has ruined a team’s season? The Saints were destroyed last year by injuries, the Seahawks had the worst year they had experienced in a long time when Matt Hasselbeck got injured last year, and there are other examples of teams who were affected negatively by an injury just last year.
This is the salary cap era. I don’t know what mythological world Ross Tucker lives in where most teams have great backups who can’t get on the field and become Pro Bowl caliber players, but it certainly isn’t the NFL of 2009. Teams often have good backups because those players are young and affordable and usually they are starting for a reason. Sure there are exceptions to the rule, but the exception to the rule shouldn’t be a reason to play 2 extra games.
Even in the postseason, backups like Jeff Hostetler and Frank Reich have become quasi-stars by leading their teams to huge playoff victories.
And then they promptly went back to becoming backups or to another team because they weren’t good enough to start over Jim Kelly and Phil Simms (Ok, Ray Handley gave the job to Hostetler, but he was a dumbass and Simms was clearly the best quarterback at the time. Ask any Giants fan).
The fact remains, however, that injuries are what it takes a lot of times for some players to get their opportunity and run with it.
That fact can remain all it wants to remain…but the fact also remains that many times an important player gets injured and there is nobody good enough to replace that player and it can ruin a team’s season or at least dilute the strength of the team a lot. Trust me, I remember when Steve Smith broke his leg in 2004 and Keary Colbert started opposite Muhsin Muhammad and the Panthers went 7-9. I also remember the 2006 (2005 season) NFC Championship Game where the Panthers were down to practice squad running back Jamal Robertson because all the other running backs had gotten injured and the team lost to Seattle. I also remember 2007 when Jake Delhomme got injured and Vinny Testaverde started games for the Panthers. We all know how shitty Delhomme is, but losing that shittiness ruined the team’s season (God, I am talking about the Panthers a lot lately, I need to stop). Good teams are often an important injury or two away from being average.
Every team has stories like this. I don’t know how Ross Tucker can’t remember any of his own examples like this. We live in the salary cap era of the NFL where it is very hard to replace marquee players and there is no way you can ever convince me players getting injured will have an overall positive effect for the NFL. It’s bullshit.
Injuries add intrigue.
This statement is why I call Ross Tucker an idiot. I don’t even have to explain why. Injuries don’t add intrigue.
Contrary to those who believe injuries to key players ruin the season, I find the opposite to be true. Injuries are the variables that make an NFL season fairly unpredictable.
No one wants to see an NFL season that is unpredictable because you never know who is going to get injured yet. We want an NFL season that is unpredictable because you never know which team will get it together and make a playoff run. That’s the kind of unpredictability that is good. Unpredictability because of injuries is not good. It never will be.
The war of attrition can be the great equalizer at times. If nobody ever got hurt, a certain amount of the drama and unknown would be removed.
A war of attrition? How in the hell is it fun to see which team has the best backups and then watch those backups play the game of football? If anyone wanted to watch inferior NFL football, the XFL would still be around. Nobody sees a whole lot of CFL games being televised nationally do they? Could the reason be because fans prefer to see football played at it’s highest level with the players who can play at the highest level? I think so.
There is zero drama removed if every team is healthy. In what screwed up world are two healthy teams playing each other boring to watch? It’s not like we can automatically predict the outcome of every game when both teams are healthy. What kind of idiotic reasoning is this?
Injuries, or at least the threat of them, are already a very big part of the NFL. They force organizations to build their teams the right way, making sure that they have depth in case a key player or players go down.
Yes, depth is great and all of that, but THIS IS NO REASON TO EXTEND THE SEASON TWO GAMES! JUST SO WE CAN WATCH PLAYERS GET INJURED AND SEE HOW MUCH FREAKING DEPTH A TEAM HAS!
This is idiotic reasoning. It’s the NFL, not a gladiator competition.
That said, it's utterly amazing how often a team gets an injury at the exact position it can least afford.
So obviously the NFL should do more to ensure this happens more often. The NFL needs MORE injuries to key players so good teams can become crappy teams, all in the name of seeing how much damn depth a team has.
That's what is so great about the NFL. Weaknesses are almost always revealed and often exploited.
Injuries are part of the game, but simply because Randy Moss gets injured and the Patriots don’t have a deep threat doesn’t mean this was a position of weakness for the Patriots. Randy Moss has skills few other receivers can match, not having a backup who is as good as Randy Moss is not a weakness of the Patriots if Moss gets injured.
If Peyton Manning gets hurt this year and Jim Sorgi doesn’t play as well as Manning (which would happen) does this mean this was a position of weakness for the Colts? Of course not, it means the Colts lost a player they could NEVER replace.
I feel like I am in Bizarro NFL world right now.
More games likely means more jobs and opportunities.
I can certainly understand why front-line starters who have significant contracts would be against adding more games. There is really no upside for them, unless they can get greater compensation as a result. But there are a lot of players in the middle or at the bottom of the roster who would stand to benefit greatly from an expanded season, in any number of ways.
Yes, the NFL should add two extra games so they can cater to the all-important backup players on the roster of NFL teams. Who cares if Drew Brees got hurt, look at Mark Brunell get one last shot to run an NFL team! How freaking wonderful to see! I mean, I personally don’t want to see Adrian Peterson run the ball well for the Vikings, I want to see Chester Taylor get the chance he has always deserved. Who cares about any increased injury probability to players, it's so great to see less talented players get a chance!
For one, the league would have to look very hard at adding more roster spots, which is music to the ears of bottom feeders and bubble players everywhere.
I know my heart was warmed this week when the Panthers lost their left tackle Jordan Gross but it finally opened up a roster spot for Charly Martin. Who cares about Delhomme’s blindside and the offensive line blocking effectively for him, look at Martin on the sidelines proudly wearing his NFL jersey!
And for those critics who assume there will be more injuries,
No one is assuming. It is a mathematical probability that there will be more injuries if the season is extended by 12.5%. This doesn’t even include injuries caused by the extra wear and tear two extra games will cause for players. Even without the increased injury probability, I don't like the idea of a longer NFL season because I feel like 16 games are enough wear and tear on the players. Sometimes more is not necessarily better.
that would mean more players likely going on the Injured Reserve list, which would entail more players getting signed to an active roster during the season. The end result, of course, is those players will accumulate an additional credited season towards their pension and other player benefits.
So the NFL should add two extra games so more players can accumulate season credits towards the pension and other benefits available? Am I supposed to be impressed or care about this reasoning?
So far really none of the reasons Ross Tucker has given add up to “more quality football will be played,” which is exactly what I am looking for. I don’t care about the pension plan, I don’t care if backups get to play more and I certainly don’t want more injuries.
It may not be the Armageddon that people are making it out to be.
How do we really know the injury situation would be that bad if an extra game or two were added?
Nobody really knows, but the odds are pretty good that more injuries would occur if more football was played. Not to mention nearly every single NFL football player, other than Ross Tucker who doesn't even play football anymore, seems to be against this. If they hate it, then that is sometimes good enough for me.
I don't recall players being carted off the field in droves during Weeks 18 and 19 of playoffs past.
That’s probably because Weeks 18 and 19 of the NFL season are the Wild Card and Divisional Round of the playoffs, where there is a grand total of 8 games played, which is approximately 24 games less than would be played in an 18 game season during Weeks 18 and 19. Even though Ross Tucker’s memory may be semi-accurate (and I am too lazy to look up players who got injured in recent playoff games), he is also talking about less games being played during Weeks 18 and 19 of the season, and hence there are less chances for players to be injured.
In fact, in the 31 years since the NFL went from a 14-game to a 16-game regular season schedule, things have seemed to go pretty well.
This is the part where I look for proof it has gone “pretty well” through Ross Tucker showing some statistics on injuries in the NFL. I shouldn’t look too long because I won’t find any supporting facts. He just wants us to take his word for it things went “pretty well.”
Who doesn't want more football?
As I stated in the beginning, I want more football, but that’s not a reason to ignore the obvious injury factor and the other problems an 18 game schedule could cause, like teams sitting their star players the last couple weeks of the season to the point the games could be similar to a preseason game. It is also a reasonable possibility teams may sit or reduce the work load of star players to rest them for no injury reason (for example, say the Vikings play the Browns at home one game, couldn’t the Vikings play Chester Taylor more and still win the game? So Vikings fans with $125 #28 jerseys wouldn’t see their guy play, or play very little, at a home game. How is this a good thing?)
According to the L.A. Times, through the first nine weeks of the 2009 season, ratings for NFL games are up 15% from 2008, with an average of 17.2 million viewers per game -- the most in 20 years, according to the league. The NFL has a fantastic product, made even more popular by fantasy football, and more games would allow the public to consume even more of that product.
So why get greedy and play more football? I haven’t heard a positive football-related thing that could come out of increasing the schedule to 18 games from Ross Tucker. I don’t think there is one.
I also think it is interesting that Ross Tucker said earlier the NFL is more intriguing when players get injured and he believes this will cause increased interest in the NFL, yet here he is talking about how popular the NFL has become. Why make any significant changes when the NFL is obviously increasing in popularity?
Plus, adding another game or two may be the only way the Player's Association and the league can reach an accord on a new collective bargaining agreement. The extra revenue, provided it is indeed significant, could be exactly what is needed to avoid a lockout in 2011. In other words, the choice could be more football or no football. That seems like a pretty easy one if you ask me.
Again, I need a football-related reason to convince me. Somehow I don’t think the players would buy the argument they need to play more football games so the owners can make more money and the players can get a few more bucks as well. I could be wrong, but I feel like the players are firmly against an increase in the current schedule no matter how much extra money it brings.
I still don’t think the NFL should go to an 18 game schedule. I love football, but 16 games are enough for the players to play and none of the “reasons” Ross Tucker has given here have convinced me otherwise. I think the 16 game schedule is sufficient and I have heard no football-related reason that would convince me I am wrong. This was a poorly written article.
Thanks to Shah8 for pointing out the article to me, I probably would not have found it if it hadn’t been pointed out to me.
Before I get to Ross Tucker’s latest “column,” I wanted to focus briefly on something Peter King friend Donnie “Brasco” Banks wrote 5 years ago. As I was surfing CNNSI.com, I saw that Don Banks wrote a redo of the April 2004 NFL Draft on November 2004…just 7 months after the draft. I thought it would be great to read and it did not let me down. Here’s a little hint to those sportswriters who love to write “do-over” drafts, and that hint is that it really, really helps if you wait 2-3 years before doing the redo draft because you are running the risk that your new draft will look as bad, if not worse, than the original. That’s the case for Don Banks “do-over” draft. I will be only covering the first 6 picks of the 2004 draft, but it’s great, I promise.
1. New York Giants- Eli Manning
Banks’ pick- Ben Roethlisberger
My pick- Ben Roethlisberger. I can’t argue too much with this redo pick because in my mind there is a case that could be made for Rivers, Manning, and Roethlisberger. It depends on what you like in a quarterback. If you like assholes at the quarterback position you take Rivers, if you like a guy who has a quarterback pedigree you take Manning and if you want a guy who seems to run around in the backfield trying to find a receiver you take Roethlisberger.
2. Oakland- Robert Gallery
Banks’ pick- Roy Williams (Texas)
Tackle Robert Gallery is fine, but the Raiders love speed guys, and Williams has been the draft's most impressive receiver.
Sadly this is a completely inaccurate comment, I am pretty sure that Larry Fitzgerald is the most impressive receiver in this draft. The Raiders should have taken Steven Jackson and been set at the running back position for the next decade. The biggest thing to remember is that Robert Gallery is NOT fine in this spot. This #2 pick redo is the best reason to wait 2-3 years before evaluating a team’s draft. It makes no sense to wait only 7 months and then try to redo a draft based on less than a full season of football.
With him, Oakland would be loaded at a position that would allow the vertical passing game Al Davis loves.
No they wouldn’t. They would have more draft picks right now from the Cowboys after the Raiders traded Williams to them in 2008.
My pick- Steven Jackson
3. Arizona- Larry Fitzgerald
Banks’ pick: Eli Manning
Dennis Green didn't want to take a franchise quarterback at No. 3 the first time around. But considering how much he had to pay receiver Larry Fitzgerald, he should have.
Yes, the best reasoning for not choosing a franchise changing wide receiver is because he is expensive. Go cheap! That’s the best way to go. Again, this choice is another reason to wait more than 7 months to redo an NFL draft. I like how the only reasoning Don Banks uses here is how much money Larry Fitzgerald wanted as the #3 pick. Can we really trust the opinion of someone who ranked Roy Williams above Larry Fitzgerald after seeing them both play for less than a full season of football?
My pick- Larry Fitzgerald
4. Chargers- Philip Rivers
Banks’ pick- Robert Gallery
With Brees holding the fort, the Chargers can afford to address their sorry state of affairs at offensive tackle. Gallery hasn't wowed people in Oakland yet, but he's going to be a 10-year starter for somebody.
You definitely don’t want the #4 pick in the draft to not “wow” anyone and just be a 10-year starter. Even acknowledging that Brees may still be in San Diego at this time in a "do-over" world, Robert Gallery wasn’t the best choice at offensive tackle. Shawn Andrews or Jason Peters may be that guy.
How about a big guy in the middle to help stop the run? Maybe Vince Wilfork or Tommie Harris? If that’s not good enough maybe the Chargers should have just taken Chris Snee or Jared Allen.
My pick- Vince Wilfork/Tommie Harris (I can’t choose, but since it is a 3-4 in San Diego maybe Wilfork is the guy)
5. Washington- Sean Taylor
Banks’ pick- Philip Rivers
My pick- Philip Rivers
I can’t argue too much with this pick. Rivers would have solved a major problem in Washington over the past 5 years. Taylor was actually a really good pick, but even forgetting his tragic death, a quarterback was the better choice here.
6. Cleveland- Kellen Winslow
Banks’ pick- Jonathan Vilma
We'll let the Browns trade places with the Lions again. Given Cleveland's situation at linebacker, Vilma, who has been a man in the middle for the Jets, is too good to pass up.
Linebacker has not been a problem for the Browns since then and it wasn’t a huge problem at this point either. What would have turned this Browns team around and possibly made them respectable? Think they could go for a quarterback right now?
My pick: Eli Manning
As you can see, it doesn’t make sense to redo a draft less than a couple years after the draft actually occurred because then the redo is still as inaccurate as the original draft. Don Banks has Robert Gallery, Roy Williams, and Jonathan Vilma as being in his top 6 picks of the 2004 NFL Draft. He’s way off. I would take a number of players who came out of this draft before Gallery and Williams. Guys like Jared Allen, Michael Turner, Wes Welker, Winslow, Will Smith, Chris Snee, Bob Sanders, and Nick Hardwick just to name a few. This is why we should wait a couple years before doing a “do-over” draft, so it doesn’t look like a mess like this one did.
Now onto Ross Tucker’s latest contribution/detriment to sportswriting and journalism. If you remember, he thinks the 18 game NFL season is a good idea. I don’t know if a mean, ol’ editor made him write this column, but I pretty much disagree with every point he makes.
Week 10 in the NFL was brutal. Stellar offensive tackles Jordan Gross of Carolina and Marc Colombo of Dallas were lost for the season with broken legs. Quarterback Kyle Orton went down with an ankle injury, which ultimately doomed Denver in its loss to Washington.
The week before that Thomas Davis went down and now Ronnie Brown is out for the season. Two weeks ago Owen Daniels was lost for the season, Bob Sanders was also lost recently for the season, and it seems like every single year the Pro Bowl has only half of the elected participants take place in the game for various reasons…injuries included. Injuries are part of the game, but they also take a lot away from the game because teams and fans are not able to see their favorite players get injured.
I am the one last year who had little sympathy for the Patriots last year when Tom Brady got injured because that is why you have backups, in case of injury, but to ignore the league wide effect of injuries on players would just be ignorant for me to do. There is a difference between freak injuries occurring that knocks players out of the game for extended periods of time and intentionally extending the season and increasing the chance a player will get hurt in those last two games or the playoffs. I love football, but I am also not a moron. I know the more games that are played in a season, the better chance my favorite team will be depleted by injuries. Call me crazy but I don’t like that.
Running backs Cedric Benson, Michael Turner, Brian Westbrook and Ronnie Brown left their games with injuries and didn't return. Even the Monday nighter wasn't spared as Ravens safety Haruki Nakamura and Browns wideout Josh Cribbs were taken off the field on carts.
And against that backdrop, the NFL is seriously considering adding two more regular season games?
I could not agree more. I love football, but it is a violent sport and the toll the game takes on the human body is incredible. It’s bad enough that ex-NFL players are having physical problems, but think of it this way, if a player plays in the league for 8 years under an 18 game schedule he is essentially playing an extra full season under the "old" 16 game schedule we currently have. It sounds like simple statement, and I admit it is, but my point is that this is going to conceivably shorten careers and seasons.
Really? Well, I'm all for it.
I have previously called Ross Tucker an idiot here and here. I apologize to him for this. What he wrote there was not truly idiotic. I was overreacting. What he is writing in this column is actually idiotic. I say this because I am “for” a lot of things in this world, but I know logically they don’t make sense so I don’t write columns supporting them.
I want 32 games of the NFL and NCAA college football per year, I want to watch Tommy Hanson pitch every night, I want to write a really long column on this blog 2-3 times a day, and I want to redo the 1996 World Series. I am “for” all of these things but logic and knowing the limits of man’s physical ability prevents me from advocating these things publicly. They can’t happen. I wish the same reasoning applied for Ross Tucker.
By now you've heard the arguments that a longer season would decimate rosters so completely that playoff games would feature teams that were a shell of themselves. That it could conceivably shorten the careers of some marquee players.
Yes, I have heard all of these things and as much as I like to call people out for being involved in a good old fashion panic, these are really concerns the NFL, the union, the fans and Ross Tucker should have. It would shorten the careers of marquee players and it would cause injuries to and greatly negatively affect playoff teams. The NFL playoff team that hasn’t lost at least 1-2 quality starters would be the exception in my mind. These are real concerns, not counterpoints to the 18 game schedule argument. Injury concerns are a reality, we can’t ignore this.
But I think there are a few reasons additional games might be worth it.
Because Ross Tucker would have something to write about two extra weeks of the year? Enough players might get hurt a team could get desperate enough to call Ross Tucker and want his services on the offensive line? Please tell me someone is forcing him to write this column. I need to be told this.
New stars emerge. It happens every year without fail, and it usually happens as a result of a front-line player getting injured.
This is the bad reasoning and this is Ross Tucker’s #1 point. You could use this same reasoning as to why it is good soldiers are killed in wars.
“Sure people die, but then other soldiers step up into the dead soldier’s role after a while and they could be even smarter and a better leader than the original dead soldier! It's not always bad because it helps other soldiers become leaders.”
I guarantee more frontline players are hurt forcing backups who DON’T become stars into starting roles than frontline players get hurt and then the backup comes in and becomes a star. New stars emerging is an exception to the rule.
The emergence last season of quarterback Matt Cassel after Tom Brady tore an ACL is an easy example, but there are others. For a player who wasn't a high draft choice, an injury to the player in front of him on the depth chart is often the only way he'll get an opportunity to showcase his ability in a game-on-the-line situation.
If the team is lucky this COULD happen, but more often than not the player who replaces the injured player isn’t worthy of a starting spot and that is why he is a backup. It’s not like Matt Cassel stepped into a shitty situation last year, the Patriots had just come off an 18-1 season.
This is a bad example.
Heck, who knows when Brady himself would have gotten an opportunity were it not for the hit the Jets' Mo Lewis put on Drew Bledsoe in 2001. The same holds true for James Harrison of the Steelers and Pierre Thomas of the Saints.
So there are four examples in the last 8 years of players getting injured and a second-line player coming in and outperforming the original player. This is supposed to be the irrefutable evidence we are looking for that supports an 18 game schedule? So 4 examples in the last 8 years is supposed to impress me? How about all the times an injury has ruined a team’s season? The Saints were destroyed last year by injuries, the Seahawks had the worst year they had experienced in a long time when Matt Hasselbeck got injured last year, and there are other examples of teams who were affected negatively by an injury just last year.
This is the salary cap era. I don’t know what mythological world Ross Tucker lives in where most teams have great backups who can’t get on the field and become Pro Bowl caliber players, but it certainly isn’t the NFL of 2009. Teams often have good backups because those players are young and affordable and usually they are starting for a reason. Sure there are exceptions to the rule, but the exception to the rule shouldn’t be a reason to play 2 extra games.
Even in the postseason, backups like Jeff Hostetler and Frank Reich have become quasi-stars by leading their teams to huge playoff victories.
And then they promptly went back to becoming backups or to another team because they weren’t good enough to start over Jim Kelly and Phil Simms (Ok, Ray Handley gave the job to Hostetler, but he was a dumbass and Simms was clearly the best quarterback at the time. Ask any Giants fan).
The fact remains, however, that injuries are what it takes a lot of times for some players to get their opportunity and run with it.
That fact can remain all it wants to remain…but the fact also remains that many times an important player gets injured and there is nobody good enough to replace that player and it can ruin a team’s season or at least dilute the strength of the team a lot. Trust me, I remember when Steve Smith broke his leg in 2004 and Keary Colbert started opposite Muhsin Muhammad and the Panthers went 7-9. I also remember the 2006 (2005 season) NFC Championship Game where the Panthers were down to practice squad running back Jamal Robertson because all the other running backs had gotten injured and the team lost to Seattle. I also remember 2007 when Jake Delhomme got injured and Vinny Testaverde started games for the Panthers. We all know how shitty Delhomme is, but losing that shittiness ruined the team’s season (God, I am talking about the Panthers a lot lately, I need to stop). Good teams are often an important injury or two away from being average.
Every team has stories like this. I don’t know how Ross Tucker can’t remember any of his own examples like this. We live in the salary cap era of the NFL where it is very hard to replace marquee players and there is no way you can ever convince me players getting injured will have an overall positive effect for the NFL. It’s bullshit.
Injuries add intrigue.
This statement is why I call Ross Tucker an idiot. I don’t even have to explain why. Injuries don’t add intrigue.
Contrary to those who believe injuries to key players ruin the season, I find the opposite to be true. Injuries are the variables that make an NFL season fairly unpredictable.
No one wants to see an NFL season that is unpredictable because you never know who is going to get injured yet. We want an NFL season that is unpredictable because you never know which team will get it together and make a playoff run. That’s the kind of unpredictability that is good. Unpredictability because of injuries is not good. It never will be.
The war of attrition can be the great equalizer at times. If nobody ever got hurt, a certain amount of the drama and unknown would be removed.
A war of attrition? How in the hell is it fun to see which team has the best backups and then watch those backups play the game of football? If anyone wanted to watch inferior NFL football, the XFL would still be around. Nobody sees a whole lot of CFL games being televised nationally do they? Could the reason be because fans prefer to see football played at it’s highest level with the players who can play at the highest level? I think so.
There is zero drama removed if every team is healthy. In what screwed up world are two healthy teams playing each other boring to watch? It’s not like we can automatically predict the outcome of every game when both teams are healthy. What kind of idiotic reasoning is this?
Injuries, or at least the threat of them, are already a very big part of the NFL. They force organizations to build their teams the right way, making sure that they have depth in case a key player or players go down.
Yes, depth is great and all of that, but THIS IS NO REASON TO EXTEND THE SEASON TWO GAMES! JUST SO WE CAN WATCH PLAYERS GET INJURED AND SEE HOW MUCH FREAKING DEPTH A TEAM HAS!
This is idiotic reasoning. It’s the NFL, not a gladiator competition.
That said, it's utterly amazing how often a team gets an injury at the exact position it can least afford.
So obviously the NFL should do more to ensure this happens more often. The NFL needs MORE injuries to key players so good teams can become crappy teams, all in the name of seeing how much damn depth a team has.
That's what is so great about the NFL. Weaknesses are almost always revealed and often exploited.
Injuries are part of the game, but simply because Randy Moss gets injured and the Patriots don’t have a deep threat doesn’t mean this was a position of weakness for the Patriots. Randy Moss has skills few other receivers can match, not having a backup who is as good as Randy Moss is not a weakness of the Patriots if Moss gets injured.
If Peyton Manning gets hurt this year and Jim Sorgi doesn’t play as well as Manning (which would happen) does this mean this was a position of weakness for the Colts? Of course not, it means the Colts lost a player they could NEVER replace.
I feel like I am in Bizarro NFL world right now.
More games likely means more jobs and opportunities.
I can certainly understand why front-line starters who have significant contracts would be against adding more games. There is really no upside for them, unless they can get greater compensation as a result. But there are a lot of players in the middle or at the bottom of the roster who would stand to benefit greatly from an expanded season, in any number of ways.
Yes, the NFL should add two extra games so they can cater to the all-important backup players on the roster of NFL teams. Who cares if Drew Brees got hurt, look at Mark Brunell get one last shot to run an NFL team! How freaking wonderful to see! I mean, I personally don’t want to see Adrian Peterson run the ball well for the Vikings, I want to see Chester Taylor get the chance he has always deserved. Who cares about any increased injury probability to players, it's so great to see less talented players get a chance!
For one, the league would have to look very hard at adding more roster spots, which is music to the ears of bottom feeders and bubble players everywhere.
I know my heart was warmed this week when the Panthers lost their left tackle Jordan Gross but it finally opened up a roster spot for Charly Martin. Who cares about Delhomme’s blindside and the offensive line blocking effectively for him, look at Martin on the sidelines proudly wearing his NFL jersey!
And for those critics who assume there will be more injuries,
No one is assuming. It is a mathematical probability that there will be more injuries if the season is extended by 12.5%. This doesn’t even include injuries caused by the extra wear and tear two extra games will cause for players. Even without the increased injury probability, I don't like the idea of a longer NFL season because I feel like 16 games are enough wear and tear on the players. Sometimes more is not necessarily better.
that would mean more players likely going on the Injured Reserve list, which would entail more players getting signed to an active roster during the season. The end result, of course, is those players will accumulate an additional credited season towards their pension and other player benefits.
So the NFL should add two extra games so more players can accumulate season credits towards the pension and other benefits available? Am I supposed to be impressed or care about this reasoning?
So far really none of the reasons Ross Tucker has given add up to “more quality football will be played,” which is exactly what I am looking for. I don’t care about the pension plan, I don’t care if backups get to play more and I certainly don’t want more injuries.
It may not be the Armageddon that people are making it out to be.
How do we really know the injury situation would be that bad if an extra game or two were added?
Nobody really knows, but the odds are pretty good that more injuries would occur if more football was played. Not to mention nearly every single NFL football player, other than Ross Tucker who doesn't even play football anymore, seems to be against this. If they hate it, then that is sometimes good enough for me.
I don't recall players being carted off the field in droves during Weeks 18 and 19 of playoffs past.
That’s probably because Weeks 18 and 19 of the NFL season are the Wild Card and Divisional Round of the playoffs, where there is a grand total of 8 games played, which is approximately 24 games less than would be played in an 18 game season during Weeks 18 and 19. Even though Ross Tucker’s memory may be semi-accurate (and I am too lazy to look up players who got injured in recent playoff games), he is also talking about less games being played during Weeks 18 and 19 of the season, and hence there are less chances for players to be injured.
In fact, in the 31 years since the NFL went from a 14-game to a 16-game regular season schedule, things have seemed to go pretty well.
This is the part where I look for proof it has gone “pretty well” through Ross Tucker showing some statistics on injuries in the NFL. I shouldn’t look too long because I won’t find any supporting facts. He just wants us to take his word for it things went “pretty well.”
Who doesn't want more football?
As I stated in the beginning, I want more football, but that’s not a reason to ignore the obvious injury factor and the other problems an 18 game schedule could cause, like teams sitting their star players the last couple weeks of the season to the point the games could be similar to a preseason game. It is also a reasonable possibility teams may sit or reduce the work load of star players to rest them for no injury reason (for example, say the Vikings play the Browns at home one game, couldn’t the Vikings play Chester Taylor more and still win the game? So Vikings fans with $125 #28 jerseys wouldn’t see their guy play, or play very little, at a home game. How is this a good thing?)
According to the L.A. Times, through the first nine weeks of the 2009 season, ratings for NFL games are up 15% from 2008, with an average of 17.2 million viewers per game -- the most in 20 years, according to the league. The NFL has a fantastic product, made even more popular by fantasy football, and more games would allow the public to consume even more of that product.
So why get greedy and play more football? I haven’t heard a positive football-related thing that could come out of increasing the schedule to 18 games from Ross Tucker. I don’t think there is one.
I also think it is interesting that Ross Tucker said earlier the NFL is more intriguing when players get injured and he believes this will cause increased interest in the NFL, yet here he is talking about how popular the NFL has become. Why make any significant changes when the NFL is obviously increasing in popularity?
Plus, adding another game or two may be the only way the Player's Association and the league can reach an accord on a new collective bargaining agreement. The extra revenue, provided it is indeed significant, could be exactly what is needed to avoid a lockout in 2011. In other words, the choice could be more football or no football. That seems like a pretty easy one if you ask me.
Again, I need a football-related reason to convince me. Somehow I don’t think the players would buy the argument they need to play more football games so the owners can make more money and the players can get a few more bucks as well. I could be wrong, but I feel like the players are firmly against an increase in the current schedule no matter how much extra money it brings.
I still don’t think the NFL should go to an 18 game schedule. I love football, but 16 games are enough for the players to play and none of the “reasons” Ross Tucker has given here have convinced me otherwise. I think the 16 game schedule is sufficient and I have heard no football-related reason that would convince me I am wrong. This was a poorly written article.
Friday, November 20, 2009
8 comments Peter King Answers Three Questions And Calls It A Mailbag
Don't forget to update your Fantasy teams for this weekend. My comeback over Bill Simmons and Peter King begins (again) this weekend.
Last week I made a comment that I can’t understand why Peter King can’t get a bunch of pages of questions out of his weekly mailbag and I still feel that way. He has to get thousands of emails commenting on his MMQB and then he always seems to publish just a couple of the questions with his answers. It just seems really lazy to me. If I had a mailbag, I would do one of those every single week and publish as many interesting questions as I could get in the mailbag. Even though I disapprove of some of the questions in Bill Simmons’ mailbags, at least he publishes a good amount of them.
For some reason Peter takes a different direction with his mailbag, specifically this one, and answers 4 questions. That’s it…and the fourth one is not even a question, it’s more of a statement. Three freaking questions is all he has time to answer. I find this to be pathetic.
Like everything else I do regarding Peter, he is going to update us on football related topics few people probably actually care about discussing and I will make fun of him. It’s a great setup.
What should have been the biggest football news item of the day Monday: Jon Gruden decides to stay in TV for the time being, taking himself off the head-coaching market for 2010 -- and leaving Mike Shanahan atop the heap of the certain returnees to the coaching sideline in January.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz……….
What should have been the biggest football news item of the day Monday: Jon Gruden decides to stay in TV for the time being, taking himself off the head-coaching market for 2010 -- and leaving Mike Shanahan atop the heap of the certain returnees to the coaching sideline in January.
(Bengoodfella waking up) Oh, I’m sorry. I heard Peter King talking about who is available in the head coaching market and who is not available in the head coaching market and immediately fell asleep. Not that the head coaching carousel is not extremely stimulating, it’s just 649% less interesting than anything actually football player related. Which coaches are going to coach where is not a big story when there are Wild Card and divisional races going on. This coaching carousel crap is of more interest after this year is over, so I don’t see the point in speculating now.
It’s true Jon Gruden is starting to annoy me in the broadcasting booth, so whatever it takes to get him out of there so he doesn’t LOVE everything he talks about there, I am beginning to be all for. As far as Mike Shanahan goes, I am not as impressed with him as I probably should be. I think he is going to be a good coach at wherever he takes a job next, I am not just not sure he is going to be worth the personnel power is going to undoubtedly demand from Washington…I mean, from whoever hires him. When I think of Shanahan, I just recall him trying to sign every underachieving defensive player on the market and firing his defensive coordinator every year. I don’t know if personnel decisions are his thing and he is going to want power over this. (Yes, I am a firm believer in separation of coach and General Manager)
As far as Gruden goes…(Do I want to do this? Yes, I do…)
In fact, I don’t care about Jon Gruden because he is a coaching retread who didn’t exactly have as much success in his prior location as the Peter King, the media and the entire freaking world would have you believe. Again, I don’t believe he is a bad coach, he is just talked about by the media like he is Vince Lombardi or Bill Walsh, just waiting to take his next team to the promised land. As far as coaching goes, I would give him a 6 on a scale of 1 to 10. Let’s take a look at his record before everyone comments that I am a dumbass.
Jon Gruden’s coaching record:
1998: 8-8
1999: 8-8 (In a mediocre division)
2000: 12-4 (Beat out a tough Denver team for the division title)
2001: 10-6 (Again, it was a fairly average division)
He did a great job with those Raiders teams with a 38-26 record, so I will give him that. The Raiders are not an easy team to coach. He did a great job there. Many people see the team as declining after Gruden left because of the poor coaching of Bill Callahan, which is partially true, but also Jon Gruden is not as shrewd a drafter as he appears to be so Callahan was a mediocre coach left with a team that was running low on young talent. The Raiders didn’t exactly re-stock the cupboard with young talent under Gruden. Let’s look at solid starters or bench players Gruden drafted each year in Oakland.
1998: Charles Woodson, Jon Ritchie
1999: Matt Stinchcomb, Eric Barton
2000: Sebastian Janikowski, Jerry Porter (borderline in my mind), Shane Lechler
2001: None
So in the four drafts Gruden had with Oakland he drafted 7 players that were solid contributors or starters for the Raiders. I don’t trust his ability to build a team. Sure, teams do miss draft picks but if you look at “great” coaches they don’t miss on this many picks…and yes, I know Gruden also had to share power with a General Manager but he still had input.
2002: 12-4 (Super Bowl Champs with Tampa Bay)
2003: 7-9 (Did a good job, but I am going to be an ass and say he was still riding some of Dungy's players.)
2004: 5-11 (The NFC South was again weak. The Panthers finished beat out the Bucs for third place and had nearly 20 players on IR at the end of the year.)
2005: 11-5
2006: 4-12 (This was the beginning of the end in my mind and the first year the offensive genius Gruden couldn’t find a reliable quarterback. Here is the first year Gruden relied too much on older players. It’s good to have a core of players but there also has to be good drafting to replace these players. Check out the defensive stats for 2005 and for 2006, it is nearly the same players in each category and many are 30+ years of age.)
In fact, let’s look at each draft Jon Gruden had with the Bucs and that will explain the records, though they were winning records, for 2007 and 2008. The guy isn’t the greatest draft expert in the world and that is why I don’t know how well he is going to do on a rebuilding team. I got the results from this site. Here are legitimate NFL players, backups or starters that Gruden drafted for each year. He had an inordinate amount of non-contributing players and busts from his drafts in Tampa Bay:
2002: Jermaine Phillips
2003: DeWayne White, Sean Mahan, Chris Simms, and Torrie Cox (all good players but none are spectacular)
2004: Michael Clayton (for one year he was good), Will Allen
2005: Carnell Williams, Barrett Rudd, Alex Smith
2006: Davin Joseph, Jeremy Trueblood
2007: Arron Sears, Tanard Jackson
2008: Aqib Talib
So by my count he got 15 players since 2002 that were contributors to his team. At the “skill” positions he got one player in Carnell Williams (who had injury problems hold him back) and Michael Clayton has become an average receiver. Most of his success came on the offensive line, but you can’t sustain success in the NFL when you draft 15 guys in 7 years that are contributors to your team. This poor drafting led to the records in 2007 and 2008, which were winning records but veterans were relied upon because there was no one else on the Bucs team that could replace them or match their production. That’s not a formula for success in the long term and this is the main reason I think Gruden may not be the best choice to run a franchise that is rebuilding. Fortunately there are franchises looking potentially looking for a new head coach that aren't rebuilding. But, say he takes over the Cleveland Browns, well he is going to try and bring in veterans to win games immediately, but at some point he is going to have to draft well for the long term and I don’t know how well he can do that.
2007: 9-7
2008: 9-7
Gruden was 57-55 with the Tampa Buccaneers. I am not overly impressed with this record, especially since the Bucs are in a division that isn’t well known for having strong teams top to bottom every single year. Yes, he won a Super Bowl his first year in Tampa Bay, but he won a Super Bowl with Tony Dungy’s players (if we can say this about Barry Switzer, we can say it about Gruden) and he beat the team he coached the previous year, the Raiders, in the Super Bowl led by the genius of geniuses Bill Callahan. He knew nearly every single play the Raiders were running so the degree of difficulty in winning that game wasn’t too high.
Kudos to him, but still color me not that impressed. Other than that, I just see an average coach. When it came time to build his own team he went 45-51, which isn’t exactly impressive to me. Also remember he took over a Bucs team that was not a rebuilding project and the team Gruden coaches next will mostly likely need to have some major rebuilding done. In Tampa Bay he showed mixed success with this.
Basically, I don’t think Jon Gruden is a bad coach, I just think he is a good looking, very friendly and nice white guy who looks like a pop culture character (Chucky) so his name is being hyped up by the media as a great coaching candidate. I would argue a little bit with that perception of him as a great head coaching candiate. I see him as a coach that relies too much on veterans and collects quarterbacks to the point it feels like it becomes absurd. So I don’t really care if Jon Gruden coaches again because I don’t know how successful he will be when he does come back.
As far as Mike Shanahan goes…here is his career record. He seems to have had success in the NFL, even without John Elway, so I will be interested to see how he does in Washingt---I mean where he goes next.
Now I am not as far down on Mike Shanahan as a head coach as I am Jon Gruden…and I am not completely down on Gruden, I just don’t know if he is one of the best coaching candidates available in the market. It’s possible for Gruden I am just remembering his final years in Tampa Bay too much and what happened prior to him being fired was not indicative of his coaching ability. I will admit this is a possibility.
So after all that typing, I am saying I don’t care about Peter’s news about Jon Gruden because I have my doubts about Gruden.
What remained the biggest football news item of the day Monday: The Call. I'll get to that in a few paragraphs. Blessed relief. We've got something else to talk about other than all Belichick, all the time.
Great, now Bill Belichick’s fourth down decision is called “The Call,” which gives it more importance than it truly deserves. The fourth down decision wasn’t made in Super Bowl or a playoff game, so we may need to think about how important the decision truly was.
Now the herd of definites for the likes of Buffalo and whatever other jobs come open has been thinned and you won't have Gruden to kick around anymore -- at least for the time being, likely until about 2012.
Buffalo may have been a suitable spot for Gruden to land…maybe. The best situation for him would be to go to Washington because they have a young, good defense and he could concentrate on getting the offense back on track with veterans. It doesn't look like this will happen because Gruden isn't coaching this next season and the Redskins will probably fire Jim Zorn after this year. If the next coach can fix that offense I think the Redskins will have a good team. I could support Gruden going there, but Buffalo and Cleveland may not be the best landing spot for him in my mind because they need some work done on both sides of the ball through the draft.
To make it clear, Gruden told me he definitely would not coach anywhere in 2010 and didn't plan on coaching the year after; and ESPN vice president Norby Williamson told colleague Richard Deitsch that Gruden would "absolutely'' be at ESPN for the 2011 season.
What would Jon Gruden the analyst think about this decision? Let’s ask Gruden the football analyst:
“I love this decision! In fact, if I could pick one decision to see made this past year off the football field, this would have been the decision. I just can’t get over how much I like this decision. It just makes perfect sense, guys. He’s coming off a tough season, he is still young and there is no need to rush things. I love it when people don’t rush things. I think this is the perfect move for Gruden. Spend some time surveying the NFL landscape and find the perfect landing spot while staying in the game broadcasting games for the best network in the world with Mike Tirico, who for my money is the best play-by-play guy working today. And no one breaks down a game like Jaws, so that can’t be bad for Gruden to experience before he makes his triumphant return to the NFL. I can’t get over how much sense this decision makes!”
(Seriously, Gruden is too happy about everything. In Week 2 he said DeAngelo Williams was the best running back in the NFL. When given the chance to clarify and move Williams behind the other running backs who are better, Gruden refused to do so and then began talking about how much he loved Steve Smith. I am pretty sure he said positive things about the Browns this past week too.)
I told Gruden I was surprised -- that I thought it was a given he'd take this one-year hiatus from coaching and be back in 2010.
Peter really doesn’t need to relay the exact question he asked Jon Gruden, we can just get the answer and feel good about our knowledge of the situation. Of course Peter always feels the need to convey to us the exact question he asked.
"Look,'' he said, "I went into this with an open mind. They've told me they want me to stay around, and it's nice to be wanted. I was in Oakland for four years, then got traded away from there. I was in Tampa for seven years and got fired. That's a little bit of an open wound, to be honest. So it's nice to be wanted.
Everyone, Jon Gruden just wants love. That’s all he asks. If you are going to hire him, just don’t fire him at any point. Treat him gently and with care. Don’t feed him after midnight and never expose him directly to water.
We talked about the spread offense and how much he's learned about it from reaching out to college coaches. "I've really learned a lot from [Oregon coach] Chip Kelly and the Appalachian State coaching staff,'' he said. "I've liked learning more football.''
It’s good to hear he learned something from my alma mater. I bet he wishes the Appalachian State coaching staff had told him to not draft Dexter Jackson three rounds too early in 2008 (there is nothing like cutting a 2nd round pick a year after you draft him). That would have been good information for the Appalachian State coaching staff to convey to Gruden back then.
Gruden on Bill Belichick's decision to go for it on fourth-and-2 from his own 28 with 2:08 to play and a six-point lead Sunday night at Indianapolis:
Good thing Peter got the inside scoop on what Gruden thought about Belichick’s decision to go for it on fourth down AFTER he gave the 5 minute version on Monday Night Football. There is nothing like hearing an opinion you don’t care about on television and then in print the next day.
"A couple of things. If you give Peyton Manning the ball and let him play with four downs, that's a big difference from giving him three downs. [Meaning because the Colts wouldn't punt, Manning would always have four downs to keep the chains moving.] In Tampa, we had a 35-14 lead on Manning with five minutes left, and he beat us.
I have no idea what this means. So should Belichick have made the decision or not? It sounds like Gruden would have made the call himself to go for it on fourth down. The comment about how three downs are different from four downs is just stupid. Yes, there is a big difference in a team getting 3 chances to get a first down and 4 chances to get a first down. That’s not insight, but common sense.
So two minutes, one timeout, four downs ... that's an eternity for Peyton Manning. I know this: There's not too many guys out there, maybe Sean Payton, who would have made that call.''
So now it sounds like Jon Gruden wouldn’t have made the call, even though he vividly recalls Peyton Manning beating his team in a similar situation. This is why I am not a big fan of asking ex-coaches and current coaches what they would do in this situation, because they aren’t going to give a straight answer to us.
So I called Payton. What would Payton have done in this case?
Whythefucknot, let’s call Sean Payton and see what he has to say.
"The question you're asking is something I really can't know without actually being there and knowing all the variables,'' he said. The question can't exist in a vacuum, he said.
Peter King: Ace Reporter, has gotten his readers yet another scoop! I am kidding of course, we learn nothing in this sentence, though I do find it funny the questions Sean Payton asked after this (in rhetorical fashion) were extremely answerable and yet he still didn’t answer. Possibly Peter should have left this part out because it didn’t really tell us anything. Is Peter that hard up for material he includes non-answers in his Tuesday mailbag?
Let’s get to the questions Sean Payton asks that would have helped him answer whether he would have gone for it or not, which are easily answerable…yet Payton still didn’t give an answer.
How's your defense holding up?
They seemed to be tiring, though they have held off the Colts in the second half a few times, the Colts still have some momentum and Manning seems to be getting hot towards the end of the game.
What kind of confidence do you have in your quarterback?
It’s Tommy Brady! There is 1,236.43% confidence in him.
Do you fear the other team's offense?
It’s Peyton Manning and the Colts. Yes, there is fear involved.
Do injuries from the night play a factor?
Banta-Cain, the one of the Patriots best pass rushers is injured.
So, why did Peter go to Sean Payton if he can’t answer the question? Let’s get more Payton knowledge…
"Sometimes the conventional thing is what the defense wants you to do."
Well Mr. Genius Coach, the Colts defense wants Tom Brady to hand the ball directly to Dwight Freeney or possibly lightly toss the ball to a Colts cornerback. So I say “fuck convention” and don’t do it.
The Colts wanted Bill to punt. But I'm watching the game at home Sunday night, and about five seconds after they didn't make the third down, I'm looking at their sidelines and I say, 'He's going for it.' ''
So here is what Peter has wasted space telling us from what he learned from Sean Payton: It depends on the situation, we don’t know exactly what was going on in the mind of Belichick, the Colts defense wanted the Patriots to punt the ball and avoid trying to convert a fourth down, and he thought Bill Belichick would go for it. I am glad we got his opinion. It told us exactly what we have been discussing for 4 days now.
I got the strong feeling Payton would have punted, but as he said, he wouldn't know for sure without being on his sideline and considering everything -- whether he felt good about getting the two yards, and how he regarded the matchup between his defense and the opposing quarterback.
I’m glad we asked Sean Payton. It wasn’t a waste of time at all.
There's no question in my mind that having Peyton Manning on the other side of the ball changed everything for Belichick.
Peter comes through in the clutch and tells us something completely obvious as if it is new and important news. You mean to tell me the fact a Hall of Fame quarterback was ready to get the ball, if the Patriots punted, affected Belichick’s decision? No way, I don’t believe it. So Peter is telling us that if Rex Grossman or Derek Anderson were on the other side of the field the Patriots would have punted and NOT gone for it?
This is why Peter gets paid the big bucks, to tell us things we already know. Don’t envy him too much, he also has to deal with SO MANY annoying traveling problems and inconveniences like people who are inconsiderate on airplanes, buses, subways, cars, and even hotel lobbies. But he deals with all these horrible inconveniences so he can tell you, the reader, that having Peyton Manning ready to get the ball with a chance to win the game, if the Patriots punted, had an effect on Belichick’s decision to punt the ball in this situation.
Quoting John Roumas of Leominster, Mass., "Regarding your analysis of the odds for BB's decision: Using your own odds, 65 percent Brady makes the two yards. 35 percent Manning drives 72 yards. That would make Manning's odds of NOT driving 72 yards 65 percent, which sounds like a tie. Also, the odds of Hansen getting off a good punt with no (or negligible) return aren't 100 percent, and on the other side, Manning's chances of scoring even from the Pats' 30 aren't 100 percent either. Those numbers would tell me that BB made a good choice, odds-wise.''
A few people noted that Peter doesn’t seem to be too good at math. What does Peter say?
PK: My base disagreement with the call is that I think the situation that most favors the Patriots is forcing Manning to drive the Colts 72 yards to score a touchdown in two minutes with one timeout. (I arrive at 72 yards by factoring in Chris Hanson's average net punt on the day, which was 44 yards on four punts.) And yes, my math in MMQB basically was nearly a wash.
Yet, as John just said and again Peter ignores, there is not a 100% chance there is no (or negligible) return on the punt, so regardless of what Hanson’s net had been for the day there is still a chance the Colts would have tried to return the punt knowing that any yardage on the punt return was going to be absolutely crucial to winning the game.
I like how Peter disagrees with the call by not changing any of his numbers, but just keeping the numbers the same that said it would be a wash either way. So he is basing his opinion on absolutely zero facts, other than what he thought was right.
I've read the intelligent piece on advancednflstats.com about the call being right and smart. I respect the numbers -- but wouldn't live by them. They are based on football statistics over time, not on what was happening in this particular game. Why use the historical average net punt of 38 yards when Hanson's average net for the night, for four punts, was 44 yards?
The same reason we still show Peyton Manning respect in this situation and possibly think about going for it on fourth down even if he had struggling the entire game…because Hanson’s stats over his entire career are a larger sample size and therefore more representative of what the punt will possibly look like.
Peter wouldn’t walk Ryan Ludwick who is (hypothetically) 2-3 with a HR in a game to get to Albert Pujols who is 0-3 in a game would he? That doesn't make sense to ignore all past data and only focus on what is happening ONLY in this current game. Same idea here. The larger the sample size, the more representative of what the next piece of data will look like. Hanson’s net average for the night was 44 yards, but why trust a sample size of 4 kicks to make a decision and not trust 552 kicks (Hanson’s career punts) to help make the decision?
Why take every drive instead of focusing on what the Colts had done that night? Over the previous 32 minutes, the Colts, in inverse order, went touchdown, interception, touchdown, punt, interception, punt and punt.
Because every drive is literally a new drive and a new chance for Peyton Manning.
Would Manning drive it 72 yards on me? Maybe. But I'll take my chances on a 72-yard drive -- after picking off Manning twice in the second half -- over converting a fourth down and risk giving him a 29-yard field.
As we have all discussed at length, this decision was a wash. Though I can’t help but feel like Peter’s criticism of the decision is based on the outcome of the game. If the Patriots had punted, he may have suggested Belichick go for it. We live in a results oriented society and sometimes our analysis is affected by what the outcome of the game was.
From Matt Burk of Pittsburgh: "Peter, not to take anything away from the Bengals, they beat the Steelers fair and square. However, remember that the Steelers had to play a big Monday night game in the high altitude of Denver, come back almost cross-country, and prepare for another big game against a tough opponent just five days later. Surely that had to take something away from their game. Maybe a little something, I don't know... But something nonetheless. Agree?''
Oh Steelers fans. You have to love them. It’s not like the Bengals are not in the same division as the Steelers and the Steelers don't have tons of tape on Carson Palmer and the Bengals offense and defense. Teams only have three days to prepare if they play a Sunday game and then a Thursday game and they have to get over it. I don’t think a Monday night to Sunday game would be any more difficult. Stop whining.
From Calvin Curd of Nashville: "Have to disagree with your assessment of Jack Del Rio's decision to have Maurice Jones-Drew kneel at the 1-yard line. A TD here means the Jets would need a TD of their own to win, and with the Jags still trailing, I think they have to take the free TD there. No FG is as sure as the TD that the Jags gave away; just ask Tony Romo."
As I said two days ago, if you can’t trust your kicker to make that kick then he shouldn’t be on the roster. It was a risk but it also left the game in the hands of the Jaguars and didn’t allow the Jets to have a chance and control the outcome of the game on offense. It’s another judgment call but I would probably take the field goal 90% of the time here because it should not be blocked or missed. If the field attempt is blocked or missed, the special teams coach needs to get fired ASAP.
PK: I equate the field goal the Jags kicked with an extra point. Also, Josh Scobee is 41 of 42 in his career on field goals between 20-29 yards. But if Jones-Drew scores, the Jets have 90 seconds to drive the field and score a game-winning TD. The chances of that happening are what -- 10-15 percent? I'd rather kick my virtually guaranteed extra point.
Since when did it become fine for sportswriters to just make up percentages in their columns? Isn’t there someone Peter can email and get an answer to this question of what the percentages are that the Jets score a touchdown with 90 seconds remaining? CNNSI.com is a pretty big company. Why not research this and stop making numbers up? When did it become acceptable to do this? I agree with the Jags decision but I am tired of guessing percentages for occurrences in football when there is a research department at the disposal of the writer.
From Doug of Austin, Texas: "Peter, the bye weeks just concluded with the Giants and Texans getting the most advantageous spots. I think the league should change the bye week schedule so all the byes are in Weeks 9 and 10. This evens the advantage and what's wrong with "only" eight games to televise for two weekends of the season?''
These are the three questions Peter answered for this week. This is it. I can’t believe there weren’t better questions that were asked.
YOU GUYS ENJOYED THE DEPARTMENT OF REDUNDANCY DEPT. After my note on Jesse Palmer using the phrase "MAC conference," you guys came through with a few more:
VIN number. (Joe of New York)
ATM machine. (Jess of San Diego)
SAT test. (Samuel of Alexandria, Va.)
HIV virus. (Claude of Miami)
Absolutely hilarious. How about this one? Peter calls his column MMQB for short but it is spelled out Monday Morning Quarterback with “quarterback” being one word. Maybe his column should be called MMQ?
(Yes, I know “QB” is an accepted shortened form of “quarterback” but my complaint is about as useful and relevant as the ones about the “Redundancy Department” examples are.)
Next week I look forward to reading Peter’s mailbag which will contain two questions from his readers…if we are lucky. Does it count as a mailbag if there is only a minimal amount of mail?
Last week I made a comment that I can’t understand why Peter King can’t get a bunch of pages of questions out of his weekly mailbag and I still feel that way. He has to get thousands of emails commenting on his MMQB and then he always seems to publish just a couple of the questions with his answers. It just seems really lazy to me. If I had a mailbag, I would do one of those every single week and publish as many interesting questions as I could get in the mailbag. Even though I disapprove of some of the questions in Bill Simmons’ mailbags, at least he publishes a good amount of them.
For some reason Peter takes a different direction with his mailbag, specifically this one, and answers 4 questions. That’s it…and the fourth one is not even a question, it’s more of a statement. Three freaking questions is all he has time to answer. I find this to be pathetic.
Like everything else I do regarding Peter, he is going to update us on football related topics few people probably actually care about discussing and I will make fun of him. It’s a great setup.
What should have been the biggest football news item of the day Monday: Jon Gruden decides to stay in TV for the time being, taking himself off the head-coaching market for 2010 -- and leaving Mike Shanahan atop the heap of the certain returnees to the coaching sideline in January.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz……….
What should have been the biggest football news item of the day Monday: Jon Gruden decides to stay in TV for the time being, taking himself off the head-coaching market for 2010 -- and leaving Mike Shanahan atop the heap of the certain returnees to the coaching sideline in January.
(Bengoodfella waking up) Oh, I’m sorry. I heard Peter King talking about who is available in the head coaching market and who is not available in the head coaching market and immediately fell asleep. Not that the head coaching carousel is not extremely stimulating, it’s just 649% less interesting than anything actually football player related. Which coaches are going to coach where is not a big story when there are Wild Card and divisional races going on. This coaching carousel crap is of more interest after this year is over, so I don’t see the point in speculating now.
It’s true Jon Gruden is starting to annoy me in the broadcasting booth, so whatever it takes to get him out of there so he doesn’t LOVE everything he talks about there, I am beginning to be all for. As far as Mike Shanahan goes, I am not as impressed with him as I probably should be. I think he is going to be a good coach at wherever he takes a job next, I am not just not sure he is going to be worth the personnel power is going to undoubtedly demand from Washington…I mean, from whoever hires him. When I think of Shanahan, I just recall him trying to sign every underachieving defensive player on the market and firing his defensive coordinator every year. I don’t know if personnel decisions are his thing and he is going to want power over this. (Yes, I am a firm believer in separation of coach and General Manager)
As far as Gruden goes…(Do I want to do this? Yes, I do…)
In fact, I don’t care about Jon Gruden because he is a coaching retread who didn’t exactly have as much success in his prior location as the Peter King, the media and the entire freaking world would have you believe. Again, I don’t believe he is a bad coach, he is just talked about by the media like he is Vince Lombardi or Bill Walsh, just waiting to take his next team to the promised land. As far as coaching goes, I would give him a 6 on a scale of 1 to 10. Let’s take a look at his record before everyone comments that I am a dumbass.
Jon Gruden’s coaching record:
1998: 8-8
1999: 8-8 (In a mediocre division)
2000: 12-4 (Beat out a tough Denver team for the division title)
2001: 10-6 (Again, it was a fairly average division)
He did a great job with those Raiders teams with a 38-26 record, so I will give him that. The Raiders are not an easy team to coach. He did a great job there. Many people see the team as declining after Gruden left because of the poor coaching of Bill Callahan, which is partially true, but also Jon Gruden is not as shrewd a drafter as he appears to be so Callahan was a mediocre coach left with a team that was running low on young talent. The Raiders didn’t exactly re-stock the cupboard with young talent under Gruden. Let’s look at solid starters or bench players Gruden drafted each year in Oakland.
1998: Charles Woodson, Jon Ritchie
1999: Matt Stinchcomb, Eric Barton
2000: Sebastian Janikowski, Jerry Porter (borderline in my mind), Shane Lechler
2001: None
So in the four drafts Gruden had with Oakland he drafted 7 players that were solid contributors or starters for the Raiders. I don’t trust his ability to build a team. Sure, teams do miss draft picks but if you look at “great” coaches they don’t miss on this many picks…and yes, I know Gruden also had to share power with a General Manager but he still had input.
2002: 12-4 (Super Bowl Champs with Tampa Bay)
2003: 7-9 (Did a good job, but I am going to be an ass and say he was still riding some of Dungy's players.)
2004: 5-11 (The NFC South was again weak. The Panthers finished beat out the Bucs for third place and had nearly 20 players on IR at the end of the year.)
2005: 11-5
2006: 4-12 (This was the beginning of the end in my mind and the first year the offensive genius Gruden couldn’t find a reliable quarterback. Here is the first year Gruden relied too much on older players. It’s good to have a core of players but there also has to be good drafting to replace these players. Check out the defensive stats for 2005 and for 2006, it is nearly the same players in each category and many are 30+ years of age.)
In fact, let’s look at each draft Jon Gruden had with the Bucs and that will explain the records, though they were winning records, for 2007 and 2008. The guy isn’t the greatest draft expert in the world and that is why I don’t know how well he is going to do on a rebuilding team. I got the results from this site. Here are legitimate NFL players, backups or starters that Gruden drafted for each year. He had an inordinate amount of non-contributing players and busts from his drafts in Tampa Bay:
2002: Jermaine Phillips
2003: DeWayne White, Sean Mahan, Chris Simms, and Torrie Cox (all good players but none are spectacular)
2004: Michael Clayton (for one year he was good), Will Allen
2005: Carnell Williams, Barrett Rudd, Alex Smith
2006: Davin Joseph, Jeremy Trueblood
2007: Arron Sears, Tanard Jackson
2008: Aqib Talib
So by my count he got 15 players since 2002 that were contributors to his team. At the “skill” positions he got one player in Carnell Williams (who had injury problems hold him back) and Michael Clayton has become an average receiver. Most of his success came on the offensive line, but you can’t sustain success in the NFL when you draft 15 guys in 7 years that are contributors to your team. This poor drafting led to the records in 2007 and 2008, which were winning records but veterans were relied upon because there was no one else on the Bucs team that could replace them or match their production. That’s not a formula for success in the long term and this is the main reason I think Gruden may not be the best choice to run a franchise that is rebuilding. Fortunately there are franchises looking potentially looking for a new head coach that aren't rebuilding. But, say he takes over the Cleveland Browns, well he is going to try and bring in veterans to win games immediately, but at some point he is going to have to draft well for the long term and I don’t know how well he can do that.
2007: 9-7
2008: 9-7
Gruden was 57-55 with the Tampa Buccaneers. I am not overly impressed with this record, especially since the Bucs are in a division that isn’t well known for having strong teams top to bottom every single year. Yes, he won a Super Bowl his first year in Tampa Bay, but he won a Super Bowl with Tony Dungy’s players (if we can say this about Barry Switzer, we can say it about Gruden) and he beat the team he coached the previous year, the Raiders, in the Super Bowl led by the genius of geniuses Bill Callahan. He knew nearly every single play the Raiders were running so the degree of difficulty in winning that game wasn’t too high.
Kudos to him, but still color me not that impressed. Other than that, I just see an average coach. When it came time to build his own team he went 45-51, which isn’t exactly impressive to me. Also remember he took over a Bucs team that was not a rebuilding project and the team Gruden coaches next will mostly likely need to have some major rebuilding done. In Tampa Bay he showed mixed success with this.
Basically, I don’t think Jon Gruden is a bad coach, I just think he is a good looking, very friendly and nice white guy who looks like a pop culture character (Chucky) so his name is being hyped up by the media as a great coaching candidate. I would argue a little bit with that perception of him as a great head coaching candiate. I see him as a coach that relies too much on veterans and collects quarterbacks to the point it feels like it becomes absurd. So I don’t really care if Jon Gruden coaches again because I don’t know how successful he will be when he does come back.
As far as Mike Shanahan goes…here is his career record. He seems to have had success in the NFL, even without John Elway, so I will be interested to see how he does in Washingt---I mean where he goes next.
Now I am not as far down on Mike Shanahan as a head coach as I am Jon Gruden…and I am not completely down on Gruden, I just don’t know if he is one of the best coaching candidates available in the market. It’s possible for Gruden I am just remembering his final years in Tampa Bay too much and what happened prior to him being fired was not indicative of his coaching ability. I will admit this is a possibility.
So after all that typing, I am saying I don’t care about Peter’s news about Jon Gruden because I have my doubts about Gruden.
What remained the biggest football news item of the day Monday: The Call. I'll get to that in a few paragraphs. Blessed relief. We've got something else to talk about other than all Belichick, all the time.
Great, now Bill Belichick’s fourth down decision is called “The Call,” which gives it more importance than it truly deserves. The fourth down decision wasn’t made in Super Bowl or a playoff game, so we may need to think about how important the decision truly was.
Now the herd of definites for the likes of Buffalo and whatever other jobs come open has been thinned and you won't have Gruden to kick around anymore -- at least for the time being, likely until about 2012.
Buffalo may have been a suitable spot for Gruden to land…maybe. The best situation for him would be to go to Washington because they have a young, good defense and he could concentrate on getting the offense back on track with veterans. It doesn't look like this will happen because Gruden isn't coaching this next season and the Redskins will probably fire Jim Zorn after this year. If the next coach can fix that offense I think the Redskins will have a good team. I could support Gruden going there, but Buffalo and Cleveland may not be the best landing spot for him in my mind because they need some work done on both sides of the ball through the draft.
To make it clear, Gruden told me he definitely would not coach anywhere in 2010 and didn't plan on coaching the year after; and ESPN vice president Norby Williamson told colleague Richard Deitsch that Gruden would "absolutely'' be at ESPN for the 2011 season.
What would Jon Gruden the analyst think about this decision? Let’s ask Gruden the football analyst:
“I love this decision! In fact, if I could pick one decision to see made this past year off the football field, this would have been the decision. I just can’t get over how much I like this decision. It just makes perfect sense, guys. He’s coming off a tough season, he is still young and there is no need to rush things. I love it when people don’t rush things. I think this is the perfect move for Gruden. Spend some time surveying the NFL landscape and find the perfect landing spot while staying in the game broadcasting games for the best network in the world with Mike Tirico, who for my money is the best play-by-play guy working today. And no one breaks down a game like Jaws, so that can’t be bad for Gruden to experience before he makes his triumphant return to the NFL. I can’t get over how much sense this decision makes!”
(Seriously, Gruden is too happy about everything. In Week 2 he said DeAngelo Williams was the best running back in the NFL. When given the chance to clarify and move Williams behind the other running backs who are better, Gruden refused to do so and then began talking about how much he loved Steve Smith. I am pretty sure he said positive things about the Browns this past week too.)
I told Gruden I was surprised -- that I thought it was a given he'd take this one-year hiatus from coaching and be back in 2010.
Peter really doesn’t need to relay the exact question he asked Jon Gruden, we can just get the answer and feel good about our knowledge of the situation. Of course Peter always feels the need to convey to us the exact question he asked.
"Look,'' he said, "I went into this with an open mind. They've told me they want me to stay around, and it's nice to be wanted. I was in Oakland for four years, then got traded away from there. I was in Tampa for seven years and got fired. That's a little bit of an open wound, to be honest. So it's nice to be wanted.
Everyone, Jon Gruden just wants love. That’s all he asks. If you are going to hire him, just don’t fire him at any point. Treat him gently and with care. Don’t feed him after midnight and never expose him directly to water.
We talked about the spread offense and how much he's learned about it from reaching out to college coaches. "I've really learned a lot from [Oregon coach] Chip Kelly and the Appalachian State coaching staff,'' he said. "I've liked learning more football.''
It’s good to hear he learned something from my alma mater. I bet he wishes the Appalachian State coaching staff had told him to not draft Dexter Jackson three rounds too early in 2008 (there is nothing like cutting a 2nd round pick a year after you draft him). That would have been good information for the Appalachian State coaching staff to convey to Gruden back then.
Gruden on Bill Belichick's decision to go for it on fourth-and-2 from his own 28 with 2:08 to play and a six-point lead Sunday night at Indianapolis:
Good thing Peter got the inside scoop on what Gruden thought about Belichick’s decision to go for it on fourth down AFTER he gave the 5 minute version on Monday Night Football. There is nothing like hearing an opinion you don’t care about on television and then in print the next day.
"A couple of things. If you give Peyton Manning the ball and let him play with four downs, that's a big difference from giving him three downs. [Meaning because the Colts wouldn't punt, Manning would always have four downs to keep the chains moving.] In Tampa, we had a 35-14 lead on Manning with five minutes left, and he beat us.
I have no idea what this means. So should Belichick have made the decision or not? It sounds like Gruden would have made the call himself to go for it on fourth down. The comment about how three downs are different from four downs is just stupid. Yes, there is a big difference in a team getting 3 chances to get a first down and 4 chances to get a first down. That’s not insight, but common sense.
So two minutes, one timeout, four downs ... that's an eternity for Peyton Manning. I know this: There's not too many guys out there, maybe Sean Payton, who would have made that call.''
So now it sounds like Jon Gruden wouldn’t have made the call, even though he vividly recalls Peyton Manning beating his team in a similar situation. This is why I am not a big fan of asking ex-coaches and current coaches what they would do in this situation, because they aren’t going to give a straight answer to us.
So I called Payton. What would Payton have done in this case?
Whythefucknot, let’s call Sean Payton and see what he has to say.
"The question you're asking is something I really can't know without actually being there and knowing all the variables,'' he said. The question can't exist in a vacuum, he said.
Peter King: Ace Reporter, has gotten his readers yet another scoop! I am kidding of course, we learn nothing in this sentence, though I do find it funny the questions Sean Payton asked after this (in rhetorical fashion) were extremely answerable and yet he still didn’t answer. Possibly Peter should have left this part out because it didn’t really tell us anything. Is Peter that hard up for material he includes non-answers in his Tuesday mailbag?
Let’s get to the questions Sean Payton asks that would have helped him answer whether he would have gone for it or not, which are easily answerable…yet Payton still didn’t give an answer.
How's your defense holding up?
They seemed to be tiring, though they have held off the Colts in the second half a few times, the Colts still have some momentum and Manning seems to be getting hot towards the end of the game.
What kind of confidence do you have in your quarterback?
It’s Tommy Brady! There is 1,236.43% confidence in him.
Do you fear the other team's offense?
It’s Peyton Manning and the Colts. Yes, there is fear involved.
Do injuries from the night play a factor?
Banta-Cain, the one of the Patriots best pass rushers is injured.
So, why did Peter go to Sean Payton if he can’t answer the question? Let’s get more Payton knowledge…
"Sometimes the conventional thing is what the defense wants you to do."
Well Mr. Genius Coach, the Colts defense wants Tom Brady to hand the ball directly to Dwight Freeney or possibly lightly toss the ball to a Colts cornerback. So I say “fuck convention” and don’t do it.
The Colts wanted Bill to punt. But I'm watching the game at home Sunday night, and about five seconds after they didn't make the third down, I'm looking at their sidelines and I say, 'He's going for it.' ''
So here is what Peter has wasted space telling us from what he learned from Sean Payton: It depends on the situation, we don’t know exactly what was going on in the mind of Belichick, the Colts defense wanted the Patriots to punt the ball and avoid trying to convert a fourth down, and he thought Bill Belichick would go for it. I am glad we got his opinion. It told us exactly what we have been discussing for 4 days now.
I got the strong feeling Payton would have punted, but as he said, he wouldn't know for sure without being on his sideline and considering everything -- whether he felt good about getting the two yards, and how he regarded the matchup between his defense and the opposing quarterback.
I’m glad we asked Sean Payton. It wasn’t a waste of time at all.
There's no question in my mind that having Peyton Manning on the other side of the ball changed everything for Belichick.
Peter comes through in the clutch and tells us something completely obvious as if it is new and important news. You mean to tell me the fact a Hall of Fame quarterback was ready to get the ball, if the Patriots punted, affected Belichick’s decision? No way, I don’t believe it. So Peter is telling us that if Rex Grossman or Derek Anderson were on the other side of the field the Patriots would have punted and NOT gone for it?
This is why Peter gets paid the big bucks, to tell us things we already know. Don’t envy him too much, he also has to deal with SO MANY annoying traveling problems and inconveniences like people who are inconsiderate on airplanes, buses, subways, cars, and even hotel lobbies. But he deals with all these horrible inconveniences so he can tell you, the reader, that having Peyton Manning ready to get the ball with a chance to win the game, if the Patriots punted, had an effect on Belichick’s decision to punt the ball in this situation.
Quoting John Roumas of Leominster, Mass., "Regarding your analysis of the odds for BB's decision: Using your own odds, 65 percent Brady makes the two yards. 35 percent Manning drives 72 yards. That would make Manning's odds of NOT driving 72 yards 65 percent, which sounds like a tie. Also, the odds of Hansen getting off a good punt with no (or negligible) return aren't 100 percent, and on the other side, Manning's chances of scoring even from the Pats' 30 aren't 100 percent either. Those numbers would tell me that BB made a good choice, odds-wise.''
A few people noted that Peter doesn’t seem to be too good at math. What does Peter say?
PK: My base disagreement with the call is that I think the situation that most favors the Patriots is forcing Manning to drive the Colts 72 yards to score a touchdown in two minutes with one timeout. (I arrive at 72 yards by factoring in Chris Hanson's average net punt on the day, which was 44 yards on four punts.) And yes, my math in MMQB basically was nearly a wash.
Yet, as John just said and again Peter ignores, there is not a 100% chance there is no (or negligible) return on the punt, so regardless of what Hanson’s net had been for the day there is still a chance the Colts would have tried to return the punt knowing that any yardage on the punt return was going to be absolutely crucial to winning the game.
I like how Peter disagrees with the call by not changing any of his numbers, but just keeping the numbers the same that said it would be a wash either way. So he is basing his opinion on absolutely zero facts, other than what he thought was right.
I've read the intelligent piece on advancednflstats.com about the call being right and smart. I respect the numbers -- but wouldn't live by them. They are based on football statistics over time, not on what was happening in this particular game. Why use the historical average net punt of 38 yards when Hanson's average net for the night, for four punts, was 44 yards?
The same reason we still show Peyton Manning respect in this situation and possibly think about going for it on fourth down even if he had struggling the entire game…because Hanson’s stats over his entire career are a larger sample size and therefore more representative of what the punt will possibly look like.
Peter wouldn’t walk Ryan Ludwick who is (hypothetically) 2-3 with a HR in a game to get to Albert Pujols who is 0-3 in a game would he? That doesn't make sense to ignore all past data and only focus on what is happening ONLY in this current game. Same idea here. The larger the sample size, the more representative of what the next piece of data will look like. Hanson’s net average for the night was 44 yards, but why trust a sample size of 4 kicks to make a decision and not trust 552 kicks (Hanson’s career punts) to help make the decision?
Why take every drive instead of focusing on what the Colts had done that night? Over the previous 32 minutes, the Colts, in inverse order, went touchdown, interception, touchdown, punt, interception, punt and punt.
Because every drive is literally a new drive and a new chance for Peyton Manning.
Would Manning drive it 72 yards on me? Maybe. But I'll take my chances on a 72-yard drive -- after picking off Manning twice in the second half -- over converting a fourth down and risk giving him a 29-yard field.
As we have all discussed at length, this decision was a wash. Though I can’t help but feel like Peter’s criticism of the decision is based on the outcome of the game. If the Patriots had punted, he may have suggested Belichick go for it. We live in a results oriented society and sometimes our analysis is affected by what the outcome of the game was.
From Matt Burk of Pittsburgh: "Peter, not to take anything away from the Bengals, they beat the Steelers fair and square. However, remember that the Steelers had to play a big Monday night game in the high altitude of Denver, come back almost cross-country, and prepare for another big game against a tough opponent just five days later. Surely that had to take something away from their game. Maybe a little something, I don't know... But something nonetheless. Agree?''
Oh Steelers fans. You have to love them. It’s not like the Bengals are not in the same division as the Steelers and the Steelers don't have tons of tape on Carson Palmer and the Bengals offense and defense. Teams only have three days to prepare if they play a Sunday game and then a Thursday game and they have to get over it. I don’t think a Monday night to Sunday game would be any more difficult. Stop whining.
From Calvin Curd of Nashville: "Have to disagree with your assessment of Jack Del Rio's decision to have Maurice Jones-Drew kneel at the 1-yard line. A TD here means the Jets would need a TD of their own to win, and with the Jags still trailing, I think they have to take the free TD there. No FG is as sure as the TD that the Jags gave away; just ask Tony Romo."
As I said two days ago, if you can’t trust your kicker to make that kick then he shouldn’t be on the roster. It was a risk but it also left the game in the hands of the Jaguars and didn’t allow the Jets to have a chance and control the outcome of the game on offense. It’s another judgment call but I would probably take the field goal 90% of the time here because it should not be blocked or missed. If the field attempt is blocked or missed, the special teams coach needs to get fired ASAP.
PK: I equate the field goal the Jags kicked with an extra point. Also, Josh Scobee is 41 of 42 in his career on field goals between 20-29 yards. But if Jones-Drew scores, the Jets have 90 seconds to drive the field and score a game-winning TD. The chances of that happening are what -- 10-15 percent? I'd rather kick my virtually guaranteed extra point.
Since when did it become fine for sportswriters to just make up percentages in their columns? Isn’t there someone Peter can email and get an answer to this question of what the percentages are that the Jets score a touchdown with 90 seconds remaining? CNNSI.com is a pretty big company. Why not research this and stop making numbers up? When did it become acceptable to do this? I agree with the Jags decision but I am tired of guessing percentages for occurrences in football when there is a research department at the disposal of the writer.
From Doug of Austin, Texas: "Peter, the bye weeks just concluded with the Giants and Texans getting the most advantageous spots. I think the league should change the bye week schedule so all the byes are in Weeks 9 and 10. This evens the advantage and what's wrong with "only" eight games to televise for two weekends of the season?''
These are the three questions Peter answered for this week. This is it. I can’t believe there weren’t better questions that were asked.
YOU GUYS ENJOYED THE DEPARTMENT OF REDUNDANCY DEPT. After my note on Jesse Palmer using the phrase "MAC conference," you guys came through with a few more:
VIN number. (Joe of New York)
ATM machine. (Jess of San Diego)
SAT test. (Samuel of Alexandria, Va.)
HIV virus. (Claude of Miami)
Absolutely hilarious. How about this one? Peter calls his column MMQB for short but it is spelled out Monday Morning Quarterback with “quarterback” being one word. Maybe his column should be called MMQ?
(Yes, I know “QB” is an accepted shortened form of “quarterback” but my complaint is about as useful and relevant as the ones about the “Redundancy Department” examples are.)
Next week I look forward to reading Peter’s mailbag which will contain two questions from his readers…if we are lucky. Does it count as a mailbag if there is only a minimal amount of mail?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)