3 comments Mark Kriegel Disapproves of Peyton Manning's Choice to Sign with Denver

For be it for me to feel bad for pro athletes, but there are times I become convinced they just can't win no matter what they do. Many bashed LeBron James for taking his talents to South Beach when he got the opportunity for free agency. He wanted to win an NBA Title, so we knocked him for calling in help from other stars in order to win an NBA Title, and then criticized him for not trying to win a title on his own in Cleveland. Then when Peyton Manning becomes a free agent we have writers like Mark Kriegel who criticize him for not going to a team that is closer to winning a Super Bowl. Kriegel even criticizes Manning for wanting to win the Super Bowl himself (as if the NFL isn't a team game), but then he also previously criticized James for teaming up with Wade and Bosh. Manning chose the wrong team by signing with a team Mark Kriegel felt wasn't close enough to winning a Super Bowl, but LeBron James had hubris for signing with a team he felt gave him the best chance to win an NBA Title? Kriegel can't have it both ways. He can't criticize one player for do whatever it took to chase a ring, but criticizing another player for not chasing a ring efficiently enough.

I am sure Rick Reilly is happy, because he wanted Manning to go to the Broncos. Even if Reilly's analysis was a little bit off, I think Denver isn't a terrible place for Manning to be. Manning really didn't have any terrible choices, other than Miami of course. Mark Kriegel disagrees.

At the heart of each NFL franchise is a heartless machine, flawed but merciless, aspiring to completely rational prognostication.

So, so very deep.

Tim Tebow rejuvenated a franchise. The fans loved him. Sure. But they’ll get over it.

Alex Smith got the 49ers further than they had been in 14 years. Yes. So?

Well, Alex Smith got the 49ers further than they had been in 14 years, but a lot of that had to do with the 49ers excellent defense. That's probably part of the reason the 49ers were looking to upgrade at the quarterback position this offseason. This excellent defense is also the reason Mark Kriegel thought Manning should have signed with the 49ers.

Neither flesh nor feeling is supposed to enter the equation. It’s a cost-benefit analysis. The question is not what you’ve done lately. It’s what will you do tomorrow?

This just in: Sports are a performance-based industry. Players are judged and evaluated on whether they perform at a high-level or not. Mount your horse and spread the word to the masses!

In that respect, as a football brain, the mind of Peyton Manning is without equal.

He's like the Albert Einstein of the NFL. Or, as Bill Simmons would say and everyone else would disagree with, Manning is the Malcolm Gladwell of the NFL.

His gift for anticipation, while imperfect, remains superior to any computer program.

Mostly because computer programs aren't often seen playing quarterback in the NFL. Or are they?

(Bengoodfella puts his laptop on a field with a football on top of it and starts running wide receiver routes. Nothing happens.)

Yep, it turns out computer programs aren't very good at anticipation and in terms of playing quarterback in the NFL, computer programs appear to be inferior to humans.

(Though anyone who has played Madden when the computer is in "Fuck you, you aren't winning" mode knows that computer program is unbeatable and superior to even the best NFL quarterback.)

Still, the Broncos? I don’t get it.

Other than they have a very good head coach, have an increasingly good defense, a great offensive line and won a playoff game last year with a running back at quarterback? Yeah, why would a quarterback want to join a team with any of these attributes?

He can rationalize all he wants. But at some level, there’s an element of hubris at work here.

He is an athlete. They run on hubris. Most elite athletes are told from the time they are in junior high how talented they are. A life without hubris is a life they don't recognize.

I like how Mark Kriegel states that LeBron James has hubris for going to Miami and joining up with other stars in order to win an NBA Title, and then states Peyton Manning has hubris for going to an NFL team that Mark Kriegel doesn't see as acceptable or close to winning a Super Bowl. It's all hubris. If a player chooses to become a free agency, there is an element of hubris because that player is saying he can do better away from his former teammates. If a player forgoes free agency and re-signs with his current then there is an element of hubris because he is saying there isn't another NFL team that is closer to winning a title than the one he is currently playing for.

In Mark Kriegel's world, everything has an element of hubris.

"Oh, you just passed me in the left lane. I guess you are saying your car is faster than my car. There is an element of hubris here."

"Look at that family's hubris! They are going to McDonald's while we are eating at Chili's. They think McDonald's tastes exactly like Chili's does, just at a lower price. What a bunch of egotistical assholes."

"What's that Fido? You want to chase a stick? I think you are letting hubris take control. You don't believe I can throw a stick far enough to where you couldn't find it. Go straight to Hell!" (immediately has Fido put to asleep)

It’s spectacular, really, the most admirable sort of arrogance, a Sinatra lyric come to life. Peyton Manning will do it his way, or, in terms of his football mortality, die trying.

I can't believe his ego either. Where does Manning get off CHOOSING where he should play after becoming a free agent? Who does he think he is? One of the best quarterbacks of all-time? Does Manning think he is so great that a team could go from making the playoffs for a decade with him as quarterback to only winning two games because he got injured and isn't that team's quarterback anymore? The ego on this guy, thinking he makes such a huge difference on an NFL team.

Consider LeBron James’ Decision, as it became a touchstone for fans of all sports. Much of what makes James and the Heat so unsympathetic is the idea that the most talented basketball player on the planet still had to stack the deck.

And yet, when a player doesn't stack the deck he gets criticized for not going to the "right" team that could help him win a Super Bowl more quickly. Sometimes the players can't win.

Manning is the opposite of LeBron James.

And yet, Manning gets criticized the exact same way as LeBron James got criticized. If they are opposite, then why is Mark Kriegel's reaction to each player's destination once they reach free agency the same?

At 35, coming off his fourth neck surgery, he believes in himself more than he believes in his personnel. He cares less about the roster than controlling the offense, his offense.

So it is egotistical to believe in yourself?

OK, I don’t presume to know what he’s thinking.

Other than stating you know exactly what Peyton is thinking of course when you say he cares less about the roster than controlling the offense. Other than knowing Peyton's state of mind to the point you know hubris controlled his decision to join the Broncos. Other than those two things, Mark Kriegel won't presume to know anything Manning is thinking.

But I’d kind of like to comprehend what has already become the single most significant personnel move of this or any other NFL season.

He joined a playoff team whose biggest weakness was at the quarterback position. Again, the Broncos made the playoffs, despite inexperience/ineffectiveness at the quarterback position. Manning's presence fixes the biggest issue with the Broncos roster.

The Broncos are run by a Hall of Fame quarterback who knows what it takes for an older quarterback to win a Super Bowl. The head coach for the Broncos has taken his four teams to the playoffs, including two NFC Championship Games, with Jake Delhomme as the best quarterback he has ever coached. The Broncos have a fairly young defense that improved as the season went along and have two tight ends in Dante Rosario and Virgil Green that are athletic pass catching tight ends.

The Tennessee Titans I could understand. Manning is the most Southern guy in sports. He went to school in Knoxville. His wife is from Memphis. He’s got 11-month old twins.

What does having 11-month old twins have to do with being "Southern?" Is there something in the water in Tennessee that causes a higher incidence of twins being born?

A contract for life in Tennessee? That’s basically a piece of the team. Makes sense, no?

It makes sense if you want a contract for life with the Tennessee Titans. If you don't want a contract for life with the Tennessee Titans and want to keep your options open for the future it doesn't make a lot of sense to accept this offer.

By not choosing the Titans, then, it stands to reason that he made a football decision.

Or he chose not to play for the Titans. Simply because we don't understand it doesn't mean it was a bad decision.

Who cares if Manning’s agent, Tom Condon, advised his other big client here, Alex Smith, to turn down a $24 million offer from the 49ers last week?

Not Manning. What Tom Condon advises his other clients really shouldn't be much of Peyton's concern.

What’s more, given his time served, winning is not to be confused with a division title. Winning means winning a Super Bowl. But again, that’s the strange part here.

So it's strange that Mark Kriegel's personal opinion of which teams are close to winning a Super Bowl isn't the same as Peyton Manning's opinion? If Mark Kriegel wants to talk about hubris, how about the hubris of believing your personal opinion should be so widely held to the point you criticize an athlete for making a "wrong" decision because it doesn't agree with your opinion?

Only one team among the finalists for Manning’s services seems Super Bowl ready. That would be San Francisco.

In your opinion. By stating this opinion, Mark Kriegel is ignoring other factors like a team's head coaching situation, the contract he would be offered and how much control he would have over the team's offense. Manning probably liked that he would have full control over the Broncos offense, the Broncos had a defensive-minded coach, and they have a General Manager who understands what an aging quarterback wants to be successful.

Even if the 49ers are more Super Bowl ready, they aren't necessarily a perfect fit for Manning. They have a head coach who is offensive-minded and therefore would meddle in Manning's offense to an extent. Manning probably wouldn't have the control he craves over the 49ers offense. The 49ers also play in the same division as Peyton's brother. This could have had an impact on Manning's decision. Also, the addition of Randy Moss may have been a negative in the 49ers column as opposed to a positive. Manning may not want to play with Randy Moss. We don't know. This is even assuming Manning sees the 49ers as more Super Bowl ready, which is nearly impossible to even know prior in March, when the season doesn't start for nearly six months.

More apparent is Manning’s simpatico with head coach John Fox and team president John Elway. Makes sense.

So there is your answer.

The Broncos have two promising young receivers, Demaryius Thomas and Eric Decker. They have Willis McGahee, coming off a wonderful, if surprising season. He’ll turn 31 in October, ancient for a running back. They have Ryan Clady at left tackle, first-team All Pro — in 2009.

I think the Broncos have an underrated offensive line. Four of the five starting linemen are 25 years old or younger. So the 49ers may have a great offensive line, but the Broncos don't have a bunch of stiffs. As far as McGahee goes, the NFL Draft is coming up, so there is a chance the Broncos will look to upgrade the running back position.

Joe Staley, the Niners’ left tackle, only made the second team, but just last year. At running back, Frank Gore is coming off his fifth 1,000 yard season, but is still only 28.

Nice attempt to deceive your readers. Kriegel mentions McGahee will be 31 in October, but puts Frank Gore's age as 28 years old...despite the fact Gore turns 29 in May 2012. Kriegel projects the age of the Broncos running back who doesn't turn 31 until AFTER the season starts, but doesn't project the age of the 49ers running back who turns 29 BEFORE the season starts. He does this to make it seem like there is a three year gap in their ages as opposed to a 17 month gap. Whatever you have to do in order to prove your point I guess.

Then there’s the receiver position. San Francisco — one score from Super Bowl XLVI — is stocked with talent: Michael Crabtree, tight end Vernon Davis and Randy Moss working on an incentive-based contract.

Randy Moss is a complete question mark. It's very possible Manning doesn't want to work with Moss. I'll give him Crabtree, Davis and even Manningham. Still, Denver has Decker and Thomas, both of whom will probably thrive with Manning throwing them the ball. I still give the edge to the 49ers, but I don't see ability as being a problem for Decker and Thomas. Yes, the 49ers look to have an advantage in the passing game, but in Denver Manning will have full control of the passing game. I'm not sure he would have had that in San Francisco.

(As I mentioned in my Reilly post a few weeks ago, I still like the Cardinals receivers with Manning throwing them the ball as compared to every other team in the running for Manning's services...except the Titans. I like their receiving corp the most with Manning as the quarterback.)

The disparity in talent is more obvious on defense. Denver’s includes Von Miller; Elvis Dumervil, who’s still coming off surgery, and Champ Bailey, who’ll be a 34-year-old cornerback when the season starts.

Dumervil was coming off surgery last year too and he had 9.5 sacks. Von Miller has All-Pro potential and was only a rookie last year. I won't suggest the Broncos defense is on par with the 49ers defense, but I think the Broncos defense improved as the season progressed.

Anyway, in what world does Manning have to justify which team he chooses to play for next year? What's wrong with not choosing to play for the "best" team? I fail to see a situation where Manning has done a disservice to the NFL and to himself by making what he perceives to be the best decision for him and his career.

There are three first team All-Pros — Patrick Willis, Navorro Bowman and Justin Smith — and two more mere Pro-Bowlers, Carlos Rogers and Dashon Goldson.

It’s defense that wins championships, right?

Right, that is how the saying goes. The two teams that met in the Super Bowl last year were ranked 27th and 31st in total yards given up during the 2011 season. Maybe Manning thinks the Broncos defense can win him a Super Bowl.

Unless, perhaps, you’re Peyton Manning. Then you try to win them yourself.

So unlike LeBron James, Peyton Manning should have chosen to team up with the best possible team in order to chase another Super Bowl ring? I'm not a LeBron James defender by any stretch of the imagination. Why should Mark Kriegel criticize Manning for not choosing the team that has the "best" chance to win a Super Bowl when he criticized LeBron for choosing the NBA team that had the "best" chance to win an NBA Title? It's that a bit contradictory.

Peyton Manning went to Denver. We have no idea at this point if it was a bad decision or not. It's where he chose to play and he shouldn't be criticized for not going to the team Mark Kriegel sees as "best" for him to go to.

10 comments Grading Mel Kiper's 2005 NFL Draft Grades

I tend to regrade Mel Kiper's draft grades on occasion. I do this for a couple reasons. It is fun to do this in order to see what an "expert" like Kiper ends up saying about draft prospects as they are drafted as compared to what their playing career ends up looking like. Mel Kiper has made his career out of evaluating college players and then giving his analysis of these players on draft day. ESPN has now included Todd McShay as another "expert" on the NFL Draft to create arguments between the two experts about certain players. It makes for good television, but it really seems sort of pointless since if Mel or Todd are wrong about a player ESPN never mentions it again. I think Kiper deserves to be regraded to see if he was right or wrong about a team's draft and to analyze what he had to say at the time of the NFL Draft about certain players.

My conclusion usually is that Kiper probably knows a little bit more than most people about the NFL Draft, but regardless of how much research Kiper does, the NFL Draft is still somewhat of a crapshoot. Kiper does get a fair amount of his analysis correct, but I don't think you can be an expert on the NFL Draft. It just doesn't seem like something you can be an expert on. I'm not sure whether to dislike Mel Kiper for making a living off the idea he is a draft expert or like him for getting paid by ESPN for being an expert when giving that title really doesn't mean much.

I realize that link is behind a pay wall, but you can easily find a link to what Kiper says about the draft at a site like this one. I would encourage you to buy an ESPN Insider subscription, so ESPN doesn't go out of business. God knows you should have to pay for draft grades that are seven years old. If we steal ESPN Insider information then ESPN may no longer be able to provide vital content like seven year old draft grades.

By the way, the biggest bullshit part about Kiper's analysis (as usual) are his grades. The lowest grade he gives a team is a "C." That's right. Kiper thinks every team did average to above average in this draft. Other than the fact this is nearly impossible, it continues a trend in Kiper's draft grades to rarely openly bash a team's draft. If Kiper bashes a team's draft and the players in that team's draft end up being really good in the NFL, then Kiper looks like he missed on a player or wasn't knowledgeable. If Kiper gives the teams mostly good grades and a team has a bad draft, well, we all know certain players bust in the NFL and we don't know why. Blaming Kiper for missing a certain player doesn't seem entirely fair since players bust in the NFL for a variety of reasons. Kiper errs to the side of protecting his reputation rather than giving honest grades. No one calls Kiper on being wrong when Troy Williamson busts and Kiper liked the pick, but if Williamson becomes a star and Kiper predicted Williamson would bust then this will be thrown in his face. So that's why I think teams don't get low draft grades from Mel. No grade lower than a "C" is pathetic draft grading and I can't believe ESPN expects people to pay for this content.

Arizona Cardinals: A

Big miss out of the gate. Antrel Rolle, JJ Arrington, Eric Green, Elton Brown, Lance Mitchell, Leron McCoy and Darryl Blackstock. Sound like an "A" draft to you?

The Cardinals had to have a corner and a running back in this draft and they got both in the first two rounds. Antrel Rolle was maybe the best defensive player on the board

He maybe really wasn't unless you like Rolle more than Demarcus Ware, Justin Tuck or Trent Cole. I like how Kiper says "maybe" Rolle is the best defensive player. If only there was someone who got paid to tell us this information with more certainty...like maybe a draft expert.

Overall, not terrible. Definitely not an "A" draft though. Maybe a "B-" or so.

Atlanta Falcons: C+

Wide receiver Roddy White was a great pick in the first round for a team that needs to give quarterback Michael Vick more help

Good call by Kiper. White was a small college wide receiver, so it would have been easy to bash this pick.

Linebacker Jordan Beck might have been taken a bit early and end Chauncey Davis was a reach in the fourth round, while linebacker Michael Boley was a good selection in the fifth round.

Davis wasn't a reach in the fourth round. He's a rotation-type guy and Boley was a great pick. I'd have to say Boley was better than a good selection in the fifth round. This is a "B+" draft in my opinion.

Baltimore Ravens: A

Receiver Mark Clayton is a perfect fit and defensive end Dan Cody is a nice pass rusher who could be effective off the edge.

Jason Brown was the best pick in the fourth round and Clayton is the best pick after that. This isn't even close to an "A" draft. Probably a "D" draft.

Buffalo Bills: C+

How about a "D"?

The Bills traded their 2005 first-round pick in the JP Losman deal but got a steal in the second round when receiver Roscoe Parrish fell to the late second round. Parrish will be a nice addition to the passing game and is also an effective returner, and his college teammate Kevin Everett could turn into a nice tight end.

Roscoe Parrish did have some success in the NFL and we all know tragically what happened with Kevin Everett. The other players in this draft made little to no impact.

Carolina Panthers: B-

Thomas Davis is a hard hitter and it will be interesting to see whether the Panthers leave him at safety, where he played in college, or to outside linebacker, where many project him at the next level. Running back Eric Shelton is an okay pick in the second round but is purely a straight ahead, bruising runner. Guard Evan Mathis was quite a steal in the third round

Almost half of this draft was out of the league three years later. I give Kiper credit because Mathis was a steal in the third round, but he missed Hangartner who was also a steal in the 5th round. Otherwise, this is a pretty bad draft. You can't miss on your 2nd and 3rd round pick pick and expect a "B-" in retrospect. Even Kiper didn't seem to like the draft, yet he gave it a "B-." Probably a "C-" draft.

Chicago Bears: A-

Cedric Benson has all the makings of a star running back

For the Bengals.

and Mark Bradley fills a need at wide receiver while also bringing excellent special team skills to the table. Getting Kyle Orton gives the Bears a nice backup who will fill in capably should quarterback Rex Grossman go down again. Receiver Airese Curry made sense in the fifth round and the late-round safeties could become contributors as well.

Can't be overly critical on this draft. Not sure it was an "A-" draft, but Chris Harris was a contributor for the Bears and has had a nice NFL career. I do have to wonder why Kiper said "safeties" considering the Bears only drafted one safety, but I guess he is so busy giving out high draft grades and scribbling a quick analysis he doesn't have time to pay attention to what position a player drafted actually plays.

Cincinnati Bengals: A-

Defensive end David Pollack and linebacker Odell Thurman were teammates at Georgia and are immediate upgrades for the front seven on Marvin Lewis' defense.

and thanks to his great physical attributes receiver Chris Henry is a good gamble in the third round despite some character questions.

I'm guessing this is a pretty depressing draft for Bengals fans. Thurman and Pollack weren't big contributors for different reasons and Chris Henry should probably get credit for helping the NFL overhaul its conduct code for players. I'm not sure we should increase the draft grade because of this though, so I won't be nice. Another big miss by Kiper. I'd give the Bengals points since Henry and Pollack's failures weren't their fault, but I'm not in a good mood today. This is a "C-" draft at best.

Cleveland Browns: B

You can't argue with the Browns taking the best player available at No. 3 in Braylon Edwards even though they have other needs. If safety Brodney Pool gets back to the stellar form he showed as a sophomore he will pan out nicely,

This wasn't a "B" draft for the Browns, though sadly Braylon Edwards ended up being one of the better receivers. Take a look at the list of wide receivers drafted in the 2005 draft through the first three rounds.

Braylon Edwards
Troy Williamson
Mike Williams
Matt Jones
Mark Clayton
Roddy White
Reggie Brown
Mark Bradley
Roscoe Parrish
Terrence Murphy
Vincent Jackson
Courtney Roby
Chris Henry
Brandon Jones

Not a stellar set of receivers.

quarterback Charlie Frye has the skills you want in a quarterback despite the fact that he throws a wobbly ball on occasion.

By "skills you want in a quarterback" I think Kiper meant "he visually looks like he would be a good quarterback."

Dallas Cowboys: A

One of the best hauls for any team thanks to a significant upgrade on the defensive front seven. Demarcus Ware is a terrific attack linebacker, end Marcus Spears is a great fit in a 3-4 scheme and linebacker Kevin Burnett is a solid, steady player. Running back Marion Barber III is bigger than current Dallas back Julius Jones and is a nice complement. Safety Justin Beriault was a steal in the sixth round and defensive tackle Jay Ratliff is versatile enough to play in a 3-4 or 4-3,

Agreed. This was an "A" draft for the Cowboys. Kiper didn't even mention Chris Canty as part of the Cowboys haul. I'd probably give this draft an "A+" or somewhere close.

Denver Broncos: C

A team that did a lot of reaching for cornerbacks.

It's part of the Mike Shanahan code of drafting for this year called "draft a bunch of players at one position and surely one of them will be a quality NFL player."

I'll be kind and give this a "C" draft since Darrent Williams died and Foxworth was quality for a while.

Detroit Lions: C+

Give the Lions credit for going away from their biggest needs to take receiver Mike Williams,

Yes, the Lions deserve credit for ignoring the team's needs to draft another wide receiver...because the Lions were set at quite a few other positions and all. I'm all about Best Player Available, but wide receiver wasn't even one of the Lions main or secondary needs. To make matters worse, any of the next five picks would have been better picks. The Lions could have picked any of the next five picks and done a better job of drafting. Shaun Cody is the main haul, so this isn't a "C+" draft. More like a "C-" or "D."

Green Bay Packers: C

The Packers had to take quarterback Aaron Rodgers in the first round. You just can't pass on the opportunity to get Brett Favre's heir apparent and give him some time to learn from one of the best passers ever, even though he won't help them win this year. Corner Nick Collins is a good athlete but very raw and was a reach in the second round, and while receiver Terrence Murphy is a nice player Green Bay didn't need a receiver. Safety Marviel Underwood was a solid pickup in the fourth round but linebacker Brady Poppinga might not be a good fit in the Packers' scheme. I like receiver Craig Bragg in the sixth round but there is just not enough defensive help in this class.

So after reading that wall of text, how the hell can Kiper rate this a "C" draft? He says the picks are either reaches, not a good pick, raw, and he didn't like the overall draft strategy of the Packers. So how the hell can he rate this a "C" draft when he clearly hates this draft? This is an "A-" draft just based on the Nick Collins and Aaron Rodgers selections, but Kiper's grade doesn't match this words.

Houston Texans: C

Another "C"? You don't say? This is the fourth "C" in a string of seven straight "C's" that Kiper gives. Why do people have to pay for this content again?

Kiper is lukewarm to the draft, gives the Texans a "C" and calls it a day.

Indianapolis Colts: C+

Marlin Jackson is a nice upgrade at cornerback but second-rounder Kelvin Hayden moved to corner just last year and is still very raw.

Defensive tackle Vincent Burns came off the board a bit early while guard Dylan Gandy will lend some versatility to the offensive line and defensive end Jonathan Welsh did not always play to the level of his physical talents. Running back Anthony Davis could be a nice find in the seventh round if he stays healthy enough to remain in the mix.

And this is an above average draft? Does this sound like an above average draft from Mel's description? I give this draft a "C" at the most.

Jacksonville Jaguars: C+

The Jaguars took wide receiver Matt Jones off the board much earlier than most expected him to go, and the former college quarterback is a projection and slight risk despite his amazing athleticism...Running back Alvin Pearman will be a nice backup to Fred Taylor and safety Gerald Sensabaugh is a good value in the fifth round.

Sensabaugh wasn't bad at all and Khalif Barnes started for a while. You get the sense Kiper is bored with grading these drafts. This was a pretty below average draft. I'd give it a "C-."

Kansas City Chiefs: C

Punter Dustin Colquitt was a reach in the third round because of his inconsistency

Colquitt is still punting for the Chiefs. Every other player, except for Derrick Johnson, is not on the roster currently. Kiper liked the Johnson pick, had something negative to say about every other pick. Yet Kiper gave the draft a "C."

Craphonso Thorpe needs to regain the form he showed before suffering a leg injury late in his career. James Grigsby should be okay as a backup linebacker but the Chiefs did not do enough to help the defense and took two questionable offensive players in the seventh round.

So one good pick (in the opinion of Kiper) gets a team a "C" grade? What is a "D?" If none of the players are very good? I guess a team has to completely forget to make any draft picks to get an "F." Even then Mel Kiper would probably give the team a "D-," just in case.

Miami Dolphins: B-

Running back Ronnie Brown is a complete prospect and you also have to like the intensity and toughness end Matt Roth will bring to the table. The biggest question is whether linebacker Channing Crowder will remain healthy enough long enough to be an impact pro,

This is a tough draft to grade. I think overall Kiper did a good job and his grade is correct.

Minnesota Vikings: B+

This draft was a straight "F" or "D-." The best player was Marcus Johnson and the Vikings missed on their two first round draft choices.

The Vikings targeted speed on their board and they definitely got it with wide receiver Troy Williamson, who wowed Minnesota enough that the Vikings passed on Mike Williams.

Maybe the Vikings should have just passed on drafting any players. It worked for them in 2003 when they didn't make their first round pick and still landed Kevin Williams.

New England Patriots: C

Guard Logan Mankins was a reach in the first round but the Patriots obviously like his size and nastiness,

Four Pro Bowls and three All-Pro teams later...not so much of a reach.

Tackle Nick Kaczur could play guard as well but came off the board a little early

He was a 3rd round pick and started 62 out of 68 possible games with the Patriots. Again, not a reach.

and Matt Cassel is a big project at quarterback.

Well, that is true. You can almost say that about any quarterback drafted in the 7th round though. Throwing Ellis Hobbs and James Sanders into the equation and this is a solid "B" draft for the Patriots.

New Orleans Saints: C

Kiper didn't have many exciting comments on the Saints draft. He sort of talked in generalities. The Saints didn't get much out of this draft, so let's just stick with the "C" since Brown and Bullocks were fairly decent for a while.

New York Giants: C

The Giants only had four picks. They drafted Eric Moore and the other three guys helped them to two Super Bowls. I'd say that is worth at least an "A-," maybe even an "A+."

Justin Tuck is an okay end in the third round but should have gone back to Notre Dame, Brandon Jacobs should carve a niche as a power back and end Eric Moore is also an okay pick.

Other than being wrong about Tuck needing to stay at Notre Dame one more year, because going to the NFL seemed to work out for Tuck, Mel seems to be on-point.

The Giants just did not have enough selections to make a big impact on their football team.

This simply isn't true. This teaches the lesson that a team can be impacted even when having just a few draft choices.

New York Jets: C

What a shock! A "C" grade. After a brief interlude earlier, Mel hits us with five straight more "C" grades.

Cornerback Justin Miller made sense later in the round because of his big-play ability and awesome return abilities, but most of the rest of the draft is made up of reaches (Sione Puha and Kery Rhodes)

Big fail. The two best players from this draft were these two reaches. So Mel is probably right about the "C" grade, but for the wrong reasons.

Oakland Raiders: C

The Raiders went with speed at cornerback with Fabian Washington and Stanford Routt but sacrificed in terms of ball skills.

End Ryan Riddle and offensive tackle Pete McMahon were good pickups in the sixth round and, all things considered, I like those last two picks better than Oakland's first two.

So a draft where the team misses on their first and second round picks is a "C" draft? Interesting theory. Mel must have really liked McMahon and Riddle. Washington and Routt just happened to have been the two best picks from this draft. I think a "C+" or "B-" would be a appropriate.

Philadelphia Eagles: A

A large class with no real downside.

The only downside being four of the players didn't have an impact in the NFL, but they were last round picks, and McCoy/Brown didn't live up to expectations. The Eagles did get Trent Cole, Mike Patterson, and Todd Herremans out of this draft. Add in Sean Considine/Moats and Mel actually got this draft grade correct.

The Eagles draft had 12 players. If that class had no downside it would have been one of the greatest draft classes ever.

Pittsburgh Steelers: C+

The Steelers had eight picks in this draft and drafted four guys who started a significant amount of games for them (Heath Miller, Chris Kemoeatu, Bryant McFadden and Trai Essex). That's a pretty good draft and even though there aren't any superstars in the group this draft deserves an "A-." Definitely not a "C." Maybe Mel's keyboard was just stuck when he wrote these draft grades and the only letter he could type was "C."

San Diego Chargers: C

I like end/linebacker Shawne Merriman as an addition to the pass rush, but the rest of the players the Chargers selected were taken a little early. Defensive tackle Luis Castillo did not have a first-round grade and receiver Vincent Jackson was a reach in the second round as the Chargers were desperate to add a receiver.

Another miss by Kiper. Ignoring Merriman's regression, the Chargers got two starters and an excellent situational back out of this draft. Castillo and Jackson proved Kiper was wrong that they were drafted too early. This draft should be a "B+" at the least.

San Francisco 49ers: B

A good first day but an average second day. There were no trade opportunities compelling enough that San Francisco wanted to give up the No. 1 overall pick, but quarterback Alex Smith is a player who's easy to like. Center David Bass will help the interior of the offensive line and Frank Gore could help take some pressure off Smith as they mature together, while guard Adam Snyder will lend a hand to Baas.

Kiper got this one right. It is David Baas not "Bass," but I guess that is beside the point. Smith, Baas, Snyder and Gore make this a "B" or "B+" draft.

Seattle Seahawks: B

Chris Spencer is able to play center and both guard positions and is a big help, but linebacker Lofa Tatupu, quarterback David Greene and linebacker Leroy Hill were all reaches.

Tatupu and Hill may have been reaches, but they were also the the 2nd and 3rd most productive players coming from this draft. I'm not sure they were actually reaches. I'm tempted to give this draft lower than a "B," but I think Kiper got his third grade in a row correct.

St. Louis Rams: C

The next three picks were all reaches (corner Ronald Bartell Jr., safety Oshiomogho Atogwe and center Richie Incognito), but Dante Ridgeway made sense at receiver in the sixth round and I like quarterback Ryan Fitzpatrick as a developmental project.

Of course these three "reaches" are among the four players who made the biggest positive impact for the Rams. Alex Barron doesn't count since he is a penalty machine. Two of these players are still on the Rams team and Madison Hedgecock made a positive impact before he was inexplicably released in 2007. This is a "B-" draft in my opinion, so Kiper wasn't far off.

Tampa Bay Buccaneers: C+

No player from this draft is still on the Buccaneers team. Barrett Ruud, Donte Nicholson, Alex Smith, and Cadillac Williams were the big contributors. This is a "D" draft in my opinion.

Tennessee Titans: B

Another tough draft to grade. The Titans got Michael Roos and David Stewart from this draft. Both are currently cornerstones of the Titans offensive line.

Michael Roos is a very good tackle for Tennessee to add in the second round. Courtney Roby is an average receiver and Brandon Jones is okay, but I actually like fourth-round wideout Roydell Williams more than either Roby or Jones.

This is the draft where the Titans got Pacman Jones. They also got Bo Scaife and Brandon Jones, so overall this looks like an "B+" draft to me. Maybe that grade is a bit high, but Kiper wasn't terribly far off.

Washington Redskins: C

The Redskins had a lot of picks but still ended up with an average draft.

According to Mel Kiper, the entire NFL either had an average or above average draft. So for these draft grades being average is the equivalent of getting a "D" or an "F." Unfortunately, in reality this wasn't even an average draft. It was below average. The Redskins got Jason Campbell, Carlos Rogers and a bunch of shit with the other four picks.

Cornerback Carlos Rogers fills a big need but taking quarterback Jason Campbell with their second first-round pick is a head-scratcher. Campbell is a very good player and a very solid pro prospect thanks to his extreme accuracy, but coach Joe Gibbs wants to win right now and Campbell doesn't help him do that.

That seems to be the story of Jason Campbell's career in my opinion. He's a decent quarterback and pretty accurate, but he just doesn't fit what his coach wants. Overall, even with the Rogers and Campbell pick, this is a "D" draft in my opinion.

So overall Mel Kiper gave out 19 "C" grades, with the lowest grade he gave as a "C." Hey, at least he didn't say anything extremely negative about a prospect that came back to bite him in the ass though. That counts for something. Don't say anything controversial that ended up being wrong and you can still be considered an expert.

4 comments Jon Heyman Continues His Attempts to Please Master Boras

The scene takes place about a month ago...

(A phone rings and Jon Heyman picks up) "Hello, this is Jon Heyman speaking. How can I help you today?"

(Scott Boras' voice booms) "Jonny-boy, how the fuck are you?"

(Jon Heyman) "Oh Mr. Boras, I'm real good. I'm thinking about setting up a lemonade stand later today. I just walked my dog, Mr. Patches, and now I'm eating some tasty snack treats and watching 'The Wiggles.' What can I do for you?"

(Scott Boras) "Fantastic. Here's what you can do for me. Did you know Johnny Damon hasn't been signed yet? Amazing huh? I want you rectify that. I need you to write a column saying Johnny Damon is a diamond in the rough and teams are stupid for not signing him. Do that."

(Jon Heyman giggling)

(Scott Boras) "Are you listening to me?"

(Jon Heyman still giggling) "Sorry, Mr. Patch's tongue is so rough and he kissed me on the nose. Now my nose is all itchy and wet, but it feels really good."

(Scott Boras) "Cut the shit, write the article."

(Jon Heyman) "I have told you before if my mom hears you bossing me around she is going to yell at you. She has told me you are not my boss and I can do what I want. I don't want to write about Johnny Damon (throws his shoe against the wall) You are not the boss of me!"

(Scott Boras) "Fine, don't write about him...that's not a problem. Though........I do have two tickets to the circus for next weekend. I know how much you like seeing the tigers and I would like to take you, but I'm so busy trying to find Johnny Damon a job I'm not sure I could find the time to take you. (whispers to himself) I can't believe these tickets come with free popcorn AND cotton candy."

(Jon Heyman) "Cotton candy you say? Well gee, I'd love go to the circus and it's a real tragedy Mr. Damon doesn't have a job. I know you said it isn't a problem if I don't write about him, but I feel like if I wrote about Mr. Damon I could go to the circus to see the tigers, get free cotton candy and help a guy find a job. Is it okay with you if I write about Johnny Damon?"

(Scott Boras rubs his hands together excitedly) "If you have to. I feel bad though. You write about him every offseason. I'll pick you up at 5pm on Saturday for the circus and you can ride shotgun. How's that sound?"

(Jon Heyman) "Shotgun? You're the best Mr. Boras! I'm starting the column right now...or just as soon as Mr. Patches stops kissing my forehead with his super slimy tongue!"

And this is the result...

Johnny Damon doesn't get it, doesn't get why he's not getting offers after the year he had.

I personally don't understand why Johnny Damon isn't getting offers either, but this goes for Derrick Lee, J.D. Drew, Magglio Ordonez, and a few other players. Yet, the columnist who is well-known for trying to sell Scott Boras clients to MLB teams picks the Scott Boras client to pimp. This is not a coincidence.

It has gotten so bad, Jon Heyman is actually pimping Damon to teams that say they have no interest in signing Johnny Damon. Not too unusual for a team to say they have no interest in a player, right? Well Heyman doesn't accept that answer as a "no" and still insists on Damon signing with the Orioles, even though there isn't a hell of a lot of interest on the Orioles part.

"I think it's a perfect fit,'' Damon said of the Yankees by phone. "But for some reason you have the year I had, especially with a team that has trouble scoring, and you can't even get a call to continue playing."

Damon is talking about the Yankees. The Yankees don't have trouble scoring and they need a player who isn't terrible in the field. Raul Ibanez isn't exactly Willie Mays, but he is a better option defensively than Johnny Damon, and I'm betting he is cheaper as well. That's the one part this Johnny Damon sales pitch fails to mention. How much does Damon want to play for this year? He got paid $5.25 million and if he wants anywhere close to that, Ibanez is a better option.

It is hard to blame Damon for feeling left out. The whole thing does seem very odd, indeed.

It's no odder than other older free agents not being signed at this point. Damon is 37 years old and is an American League player at this point. His OBP and Slugging % have been on a steady dive since 2008. I don't find it odd teams would prefer not to sign Damon anymore than I find it strange no team has a need for some of the other older outfielders on the free agent market. If we factored Damon's asking price into the equation, it may become even less odd.

Damon said he never got an offer from the Rays even though he had a very nice year, hitting 16 home runs with 73 RBIs with 19 stolen bases and a .261 batting average while playing home games in the ballpark that was the best pitchers' park American League last year.

I'm not sure if Jon Heyman heard or not, but the Rays tend to be on a tight budget. Paying $3 million for an aging outfielder who can be replaced by a better player (Desmond Jennings) probably is not a smart move for them.

He also put together an improbable streak of five consecutive games with game-winning hits and became a leader with the young team that had a magical finish.

Damon is magical ya'll!

Meanwhile, different reasons have been heard why the Yankees favor Ibanez, one sillier than the next.

The reasons are silly to you. Your opinion doesn't necessarily reflect reality. There are other candidates on the free agent market who can be bought at a lower price than Damon who may have a higher ceiling, as well as can play the field better than Damon.

One reason heard is that Ibanez hit better against right-handed pitchers last year, and if you count .256 as better than .255, then yes, that is the case. But it seems like that would be far from a driving force in a decision.

I'm sure there were other driving forces, like salary requirements and whether the Yankees like Ibanez more than Damon. Which player would I choose? Damon, but the price the Yankees got Ibanez for makes his signing an almost non-risk. So based on price, I may not choose Damon.

Damon didn't play much defense last year when the Rays had better defensive alternatives such as Brandon Jennings, B.J. Upton and Sam Fuld.

That's a slap in the face. The Rays thought the point guard for the Milwaukee Bucks was a better option than Johnny Damon? Hard to come back from that.

"When you have Jennings and Upton, of course I'm going to DH," Damon said. "When I played out there, I held my own."

Damon thinks he held his own. I'm not sure the most unbiased opinion to be found on Damon's defensive abilities is the opinion of Johnny Damon.

But even if Ibanez is slightly better with the glove now, having played it regularly in Philly, defense seems like a funny way to pick a DH.

Not if that DH is going to be playing either right or left field on occasion.

Yet another reason heard recently is that Damon's .326 on-base percentage last year is a sign he's thinking too much about 3,000 hits and not getting on like before. This is the winner for sheer ridiculousness of course, as Ibanez's 2011 on-base percentage of .289 (with 33 walks all year) would be the statistic of concern, not Damon's .326.

You don't often hear a national columnist questioning a team's signing of a player over another specific player, complete with statistical evidence. I guess that's what happens when Master Boras tells Jon Heyman he won't send him scoops on "mystery teams" and other information if Heyman doesn't pimp out Boras clients from time-to-time.

Damon is more than a fine teammate, he's been a key man on two World Series winners,

Raul Ibanez? He's a royal asshole. In fact, he drowned Brett Gardner's bunny in a bathtub just a few days ago.

This doesn't sound like a typical "why isn't free agent X signed yet" column, does it? It feels like Heyman is not a national columnist, but a local beat writer who has taken a liking to a certain player.

the historic 2004 Boston Red Sox and the 2009 Yankees.

Damon is magical AND historic.

Damon is a winner, always has been.

Damon wasn't such a winner when he played for those Kansas City Royal teams early in his career. It's amazing what playing for the Yankees, Rays, early 2000 A's and Red Sox will do for a guy's reputation as a winner.

Ibanez is by all accounts a very nice fellow, but Damon is a big clubhouse presence who always has been the one to stand up and answer the tough questions when things aren't going well.

So all MLB teams, when preparing for failure this year be sure to sign Johnny Damon so he can answer all the tough questions about the team's failures.

Damon, who at 38 is also a year younger than Ibanez, may not be the defender he once was, but the job is for a DH, and Damon has all the experience at that. Damon also has a superb history in the American League East, having thrived for all three of the big teams in that division.

Yet again, the "x-factor" that hasn't been acknowledged at this point is how much money Damon wants. Everything sounds good until you read at one point Damon wanted about $5 million for a one year deal. Considering Ibanez is $4 million cheaper, that could be the reason the Yankees preferred him. Heyman conveniently leaves price out of this discussion.

It can't be about the money, either, because Damon hasn't gotten an offer.

Perhaps he hasn't had an offer because the money he is reported to be requesting has been too expensive. So the reason very well can be money if Scott Boras has informed any team contacting Boras as Damon's agent that Damon wants $5 million per year. If this price is too high, then an offer may never occur. So it very well could be the money. If a house for sale is listed at a price way too high above how much you are willing to pay for it, would you put an offer in on the house? Probably not, unless you think the price can be lowered. I'm assuming since Boras is Damon's agent teams are not expecting Damon's price to be lowered very soon.

he said he didn't get one from Tampa, which gave Luke Scott a $5 million deal off an injury year,

Luke Scott is also 33 years old and put up three straight seasons of 20+ homeruns and a OBP of at least .336 before his "injury year" in 2011. He is perhaps worth $5 million to the Rays.

So Tampa took Scott off a year of injuries, and Damon sees that Ibanez may get the job he wants after Ibanez's season of outs.

Not that Heyman sounds bitter about this at all. No, he's being a completely neutral observer of this situation and is not at all angry Boras' client isn't getting more attention.

Damon is in Hawaii enjoying a planned vacation. But he has one eye on the phone.

"Hopefully it rings soon," he said, "and whether it rings in a few minutes or a few weeks, I'll be ready with the bat."

But he may not bring a glove and perhaps won't receive $5 million for a one year contract.

Well done Jon Heyman. You have served your Master Boras well yet again. Come sit down on Master Boras' lap and have a chocolate chip cookie.

4 comments Are You Being Serious? Dan Shaughnessy Shows His Mastery of Trolling Through the Written Word

Dan "How's my Perm Look?" Shaughnessy has taken time out from writing about chicken and beer (There was chicken. And beer. In the Red Sox clubhouse. Shockingly society has managed to endure.) and how chicken and beer helped lead to the downfall of the 2011 Boston Red Sox. He has taken this time away from harping on a non-issue to allow his audience, or what is left of his audience, know he really likes Bobby Valentine. Valentine is much better than that shithead Terry Francona. Or IS Valentine better than Francona? You can't tell from this article. It sounds like Dan is saying there needed to be changes with the Red Sox and Bobby Valentine is going to bring those needed changes to the team.

You know they say a manager is a "player's coach?" Well, Bobby Valentine is a sportswriter's coach (He promises change! Has any manager promised this ever before? The answer is "no.") and Dan Shaughnessy is totally digging it. Or IS Dan digging it? It also sounds like Dan is saying (through the use of sarcasm) that nothing will change and Valentine's words consist of empty promises. But then Dan is pretty complimentary of Bobby Valentine, so it is hard to tell.

Last time I heard about anything regarding Dan Shaughnessy and Terry Francona in the same sentence, they were were writing a book together. (It is kind of weird of Dan to write a book with a guy like Francona and then be critical of how Francona ran the Red Sox team.) On one hand this article seems like a basic Theo Epstein and Terry Francona bashfest. The article is about how the Red Sox are going to be a much better team under Valentine as compared to Francona, the manager Dan Shaughnessy called the best Red Sox manager of all-time.

Here's what Shaughnessy said about Francona in the past...

"I think you have to put him number one," Shaughnessy said. "I know you can go back to the teens, and the [Joe] Kerrigan days, and obviously Joe Cronin was here for like a million years in the 1940s and 1950s and all that jazz. But to win two World Series in this day and age, and to come from where they've come from ... I'm going to put him number one."

BUT NOW, Bobby Valentine is going to be the best Red Sox manager of all-time (apparently). In fact, he very well may be the greatest manager ever in the history of baseball and better than any other coach or manager that has ever existed and you can't ever change Dan's opinion of this...though a five game losing streak would possibly do the trick.

What sportswriter worth a shit writes an article where the audience can't tell the tone of the piece? Shaughnessy has the innate ability to tweak both Bobby Valentine supporters, those who like Terry Francona and Red Sox fans in general. No matter what you believe, you hate this column. It would be impressive if it wasn't so embarrassing for him to troll his audience like this. I can't believe Dan Shaughnessy is serious and actually wrote an article where the tone seemed to be sarcasm, but it also seems a bit serious in parts. At this point, the only purpose Dan Shaughnessy serves is to piss off readers. Checks the comments of this article. There doesn't seem to be a consensus on what this article is saying, but whatever it is saying it is really pissing people off at each other, the Red Sox and Dan Shaughnessy.

It’s been two weeks in paradise watching Bobby Valentine and the “all new’’ Red Sox. I see the new drills and the subliminal video messages and the longer workouts and the smarter-than-everybody manager and I keep asking myself the same question . . .
Why does my face constantly look bloated? Who can I bash in my latest column in order to tweak Red Sox fans? How do I consider myself to be an expert on Boston sports when I don't really do anything but write reactionary columns which serve more as a pathetic attempt at notoriety and cause me to be the laughingstock of fans and fellow sportswriters alike? Why won't Heidi Watney return my repeated phone calls?

How did the Red Sox win two World Series, average 93 wins per season, and make the playoffs five times when they were clearly such a chaotic, disorganized mess in spring training for the last eight years?

Is this sarcasm? Is this not sarcasm? Herein lies the issue with this article. Dan Shaughnessy doesn't seem to care to further any certain point of view, he just wants to piss us off. Shaughnessy has criticized the Red Sox for the chicken and beer scandal (There was chicken and beer. In the clubhouse. The world will never be the same.), so I can see where he would think the team was a chaotic mess. Also, this statement is stupid and even someone who trolls as blatantly as Shaughnessy could be serious in making this statement.

How could we all have been fooled?

That's a great question to ask, especially if Dan is being serious when writing this statement. It's not like he gets paid to write about the Red Sox or has access to the locker room, players and coaches. So I guess my question, if he is being serious, is how he could have been fooled?

It’s amazing when you really think about it. All these years they could have been great and they settled for just plain pretty good. Fans ate hamburger when they could have been feasting on prime rib.

The Red Sox won two World Series under Terry Francona. That was prime rib compared to anything else the Red Sox had done over the previous 80 years.

It’s all different now, that’s for sure.

Again...sarcasm or not? This article is such a mess that if the Boston Globe had an editorial staff at all (which I assume they don't, otherwise there's no way this article gets published) they would tell Shaughnessy to re-write it. What Shaughnessy doesn't realize is his audience has such little respect for him, we actually believe he is trolling and stupid enough to believe the two World Series victories were "hamburger" and a new manager promising changes would make things different. I actually believe Dan Shaughnessy would write something as inane as this.

This isn’t like the old days when the Sox always went through the motions during spring training.

And look where it got them! The Red Sox only made the playoffs five of the eight seasons Francona was the manager. That's it. The Curse of Francona dragged this team down!

Sox players are no longer allowed to drive themselves to spring training games. Everyone must take the bus. Francona not only allowed players to drive themselves around Florida, he allowed high-roller players to charter a plane and separate themselves from the jamokes on the bus.

The tone here seems to be very serious. It is obvious to me Dan Shaughnessy believes Valentine's way is better.

Oh, and remember how Tito allowed Josh Beckett to have Varitek as his binkie? No more personal catchers.

“It’s not my choice or style,’’ said Valentine.

And we all know Valentine's style that has led to a .510 winning percentage and zero division titles are much better than Terry Francona's choices or style. You can't argue with his way of doing things with the success he's had.

Now we have Bobby V reinventing baseball in Fort Myers. Bobby has the brainwash videos looping in the Sox clubhouse (one day it might be pitchers making routine fielding plays, another day it’ll be relays from the outfield).

Now Dan Shaughnessy is being snide about the videos that Valentine is having his team watch. Is Dan not really saying anything so he can jump on the Valentine bandwagon if the Red Sox succeed, but still jump off the bandwagon if Valentine is a failure? I can only assume that's what he is doing.

Bobby has his coaches using real bats instead of fungo bats to replicate game-condition spin on the baseball. Sox pitchers no longer shag fly balls during batting practice.

Again, I don't know if Shaughnessy is being serious or not. He really needs to work on the tone of his writing or perhaps quit writing about sports altogether (crosses fingers). It sounds like he really thinks Valentine is a better option than Francona was. This is clear until you read where Shaughnessy writes,

It’s pretty clear now that Theo Epstein and Terry Francona were doofuses. They didn’t know what they were doing. They just threw the bats, balls, and gloves on the field and told the fellows to “go get ’em.’’

This just isn't true and I think Shaughnessy would know this isn't true. So essentially Shaughnessy is just baiting every single person he can bait in an effort to get a reaction. Again, if Valentine succeeds he can point back to this article as proof he was on-board and if Valentine fails then he will attempt to make his readers feel stupid for believing he was serious. This article is sarcasm wrapped in super-seriousness.

My favorite Bobby-isn’t-Tito moment came in the middle of one of his early news conferences on the picnic table outside the Sox clubhouse. Francona’s pet peeve was cellphones going off in the middle of his pressers. Woe was the reporter or camera guy who forgot to turn off his phone before the start of the session.

So what happened when Bobby V got into it with us last week? His own phone went off!

His OWN phone?! Amazing and shocking. Bobby Valentine is built for success with the Red Sox because his phone rings during press conferences and he baits the Yankees.

And you wonder why we all love this guy?

But do you love this guy, Dan Shaughnessy? Or are you simply baiting your audience and doing the only thing you know how to do well at this point in your career, which is writing bullshit in an effort to get a reaction from readers?

I ask if Dan Shaughnessy is being serious or not, but sadly, I think he is being serious. He's just not exactly sure what he is being serious about at this point, it's just the reaction he gets which is all that matters.

8 comments MMQB Review: Denver Replaces a Running with a Quarterback Edition

So as I started to finish this post, I heard the Broncos are starting negotiations with Peyton Manning and are then going to look into trading Tim Tebow. Needless to say, I wish that information had been available before I wrote MMQB on Monday morning. It just means some of Peter's speculation feels like old news. Regardless, it is still fun to imagine a world where Manning had not made a decision and Tim Tebow was not going to be traded. This gives Peter a chance to imagine where Peyton Manning would go and how it would affect quarterbacks around the NFL. I mentioned this on Twitter, but has any team upgraded the quarterback position so much from one year to the next than Denver has in going from Tim Tebow to Peyton Manning?

Last week Peter King quoted Bob Glauber, who had this to say about the Peyton Manning visits to Denver and Miami,

"I give Peyton a ton of credit. Only meeting with teams he's legitimately interested in. Not playing leverage game w/others. Moving quickly.''

-- @BobGlauber, the prescient Newsday football writer, Sunday night as Manning flew to his offseason home in Miami.

My response was to suggest it had only been less than a week since got released, so let's hold off on sending Manning kudos for his quick decision-making time. I have no issue with Manning taking some time to make a decision. I do find it funny certain parts of the media compliments Manning for being so decisive, cover every little thing he does/says/indicates, and then eventually turns on him when he doesn't make a decision quickly enough. In a 24/7 sports cycle, giving a quarterback two weeks to make an important decision would seem logical, but the media grows impatient quickly.

This week Peter discusses the ripple effect of Manning's decision, his thoughts on beer and coffee, and his thoughts on the NCAA Tournament even though he hasn't watched college basketball all season. At least Peter holds off on making official proclamations about which players are going to make it in the NBA and which players are not based on two weeks of watching college basketball. Peter leaves these misguided proclamations up to Bill Simmons.

Well, Peyton Manning's doing a terrific job of not telegraphing his intentions.

Which he is not obligated in any way to do.

One top official from one of the three teams told me Sunday night his team hadn't heard from Manning all day Sunday and, in his words, "We don't know if we're in or out. He told us he'd call when he knew what he was going to do, and we're taking him at his word. No pressure.''

"I'm telling a national columnist that Manning hasn't called us in an effort to say we don't know which way he is leaning. So I am reporting to Peter there is no news to report. I am telling Peter King fully knowing he will put it in a nationally read column that we haven't heard from Peyton. There's no pressure on Manning, of course by my stating this in a nationally read column. I'm just saying we haven't heard from Manning and we believe him when he said he would call. So we know he will call, but we aren't sure when he will call. We don't know anything and we want Peter to report we don't know anything, but we will continue waiting by the phone. But no pressure on Manning. It's just we haven't heard anything, but we don't need to hear anything, but we also haven't heard anything so there's nothing to report. I'm not even sure why I'm saying all of these words because there's nothing to say. So no pressure, we don't expect to hear anything, even though we would like to hear something at some point soon in order to go with our Plan B...but no pressure on Manning. We'd like a decision though."

So, folks, we're all guessing here. So let's not guess.

Yes, let's be done guessing, but spend the majority of this MMQB speculating where Peyton Manning will go and what effect this will have on other teams and quarterbacks. It's like guessing, but much more presumptive.

Tennessee is in the division he knows intimately, and he loves familiarity.

(Cue Florida Gators fans making jokes about how Peyton Manning can come back to Tennessee, but he still can't beat the Gators.)

San Francisco may have the NFC disadvantage, but it also has the best team.

Last year. San Francisco had the best team last year. Peter has to know things change on a yearly basis in the NFL. So he can't just say "San Francisco has the best team" and ignore the team's mediocrity the years before last year. Yeah, the 49ers may be good again next year, but the 49ers are also playing a first place schedule this year and won't be sneaking up on teams again. Things change quickly in the NFL.

Denver has a good confidant, John Elway, running the show, a young franchise receiver in Demaryius Thomas and one of Manning's very good friends (Brandon Stokley) living in town. He could win at any of the three places. He'd win biggest in San Francisco, most likely.

Most likely he would win biggest in San Francisco? Based on last year's results, which we all know in the NFL last year's results are not always very similar to the upcoming year's probable results. The Green Bay Packers won the Super Bowl a year ago by winning three games on the road and this year they couldn't win a home playoff game. Last year's results are not always very similar to the future year's results. I would argue it isn't most likely Manning would win in San Francisco and it is nearly impossible to guess (outside of a few franchises that are consistently good, but they already have good quarterbacks) where Manning would be most likely to win.

While Manning mulls, here's my read on who, and what, is being swept up in this story that may have 48 hours yet to wash over us all:

Everyone. We are all washed up Manning's world. In fact, Manning's world has now affected Tim Tebow. God is going to be so pissed off about this chain of events. You just wait and see, Manning is going to suffer a terrible injury caused by lightning striking him in the first preseason game. You don't mess with Tebow.

Alex Smith. Sure seems like a jilted quarterback to me. How many times has coach Jim Harbaugh staunchly defended this criticism magnet over the past 14 months? Daily, it seems. They're so tight Smith caddied for Harbaugh at the AT&T golf tournament last month. But I think Smith (an unrestricted free agent) was getting some cold feet about his long-term love from the team before the Manning/Niner interest surfaced.

So now that Manning has signed with the Broncos, do the 49ers talk real sweet-like to Smith and try to get him to come back and play for them? The 49ers have been giving Smith the whole "sure, we'll call you soon" talk about a new contract and then went out and pursued another quarterbacks in free agency. I think Smith will come back to the 49ers, but he is probably pretty hurt right now.

He thought the contract being discussed should have been structured more favorably to him in the first year or so of the deal, and he was thinking of looking around in free agency before learning of the Manning workout for Harbaugh and Roman.

These kinds of things happen when you take a team to the NFC Championship Game and that team doesn't make an overly concerted effort to sign you to a contract extension. Quarterbacks tend to get upset over these things. I suggest the 49ers come to their next contract negotiation with Alex Smith holding chocolates, a Teddy Pendergrass CD and some really pretty red roses.

After Smith met with the Dolphins Sunday morning, he went to the Fort Lauderdale airport to catch a flight to Seattle. But the Seahawks had him hold on for a bit, then told him not to come. They'd just agreed to terms with Matt Flynn. And Sunday night, Mike Klis of the Denver Post reported Miami was negotiating to try to bring Smith to terms before Manning made his call. Stay tuned.

Does it really matter? After all, the 49ers are going to be good this upcoming year anyway. It's just a matter of which quarterback they choose to sign. The 49ers were good last year, so they'll be good this year too. They should just pick a quarterback to sign and then go and be good. It's simple.

Would Smith rather rub it in 49er GM Trent Baalke's face and run off to a bad team, and would he rather pray for Manning to pick Tennessee or Denver, enabling Smith to go back to where he has the best chance by far of making a Super Bowl run? Ireland may have to do what he loathes -- overspend for an OK player -- just to deodorize the stink of the last few years in Miami.

Because overspending for an OK player is going to make it all go away. Right, Washington Redskins? All the Redskins' problems are forgotten because they have Pierre Garcon and Josh Morgan. Overspending for an OK player has never been a bad idea, it covers up all previous mistakes, and it is a really great way to get fired.

Randy Moss. At 35, does he have anything left? At 32, he caught 83 balls for 1,264 yards and 13 touchdowns. He'd likely be significantly jacked up to catch balls from Manning after catching them from another all-timer, Tom Brady, for three-plus years. More jacked up, I'd imagine, than catching balls from Josh Johnson.

At least the 49ers know that Randy Moss has a history of not trying hard when he doesn't like either (a) the quarterback throwing him the ball or (b) he doesn't think he is getting enough passes thrown his way. So no pressure to fill that quarterback position, San Francisco.

Colt McCoy. If Manning picks Tennessee and Hasselbeck is imported by Cleveland, McCoy would have a big challenge beating out Hasselbeck in an offense he played every year of his pro career in except 2011 in Nashville.

Well, that and McCoy would have a huge challenge beating out Hasselbeck because Matt Hasselbeck is simply still a better quarterback than Colt McCoy is. Tim Hasselbeck may even be a better quarterback than Colt McCoy.

Ok, I may have gone a little overboard there.

The Broncos. Seemed like the ballgame was theirs to lose six days ago. Cold and hot doesn't matter here, so who knows? Manning may be just making sure he's made the right choice -- or he might be seeing some zits the further away from the Broncos he gets.

We know by now that Manning gave the Broncos his final rose and they are the winners in the Manning sweepstakes.

Tim Tebow. If Manning picks Denver, I'd be the only person alive who'd think Denver shouldn't trade Tebow; I'd love to see him be the jack-of-all-trades runner-receiver-very occasional thrower who'd keep defenses honest.

Sounds great, except I'm pretty sure Manning and the Broncos had a conversation like this one:

(John Elway) "We'd really like you to join us, Peyton."

(Peyton Manning) "Sounds great, if I join the team then what is the plan for Tim Tebow?"

(John Elway) "We'll probably keep Tebow around as a change-of-pace---"

(Peyton Manning) "You aren't understanding me. What is the plan for Tebow? I don't see it as beneficial to have two starting quarterbacks on one team."

(John Elway) "We will probably trade him (looks at Manning who is nodding in agreement) and then try to get more draft picks for him. Tebow is gone if you come to Denver. Who needs two starting quarterbacks on one team?"

(Peyton Manning) "Certainly not any team that plans to sign me."

Basically what I am saying is Peyton Manning in no way would sign with the Broncos if they planned to keep Tim Tebow. He wants no part of that circus or have Tebow over his shoulder the entire time he is playing quarterback for the Broncos. So Manning may not have come out and said Tebow has to go, but I would guess it is understood. Peyton Manning has no inclination to play on the same team as Tebow and fight off the enraged and passionate fans of Tebow. I can't blame him for feeling this way either.

I think it would be. I'd keep him unless I could get a third- or higher.

Or unless Peyton Manning told the Broncos to rid themselves of Tebow, which is highly likely. If the Broncos keep Tebow, I can't imagine Manning would be happy.

The deal is for three years, with $10 million guaranteed. Depending on his skill level and whether he starts, Flynn could earn between $19.5 and $24 million from the contract, or $26 million if he performs at a top-quarterback level. But chances are he'll play two years of the deal and then the Seahawks will make their decision for the future on him.

I think this is a really reasonable amount to pay for Matt Flynn. It is enough money to where Flynn would be well compensated as a starter and there is some risk tied in with Flynn, but not too much money to where the Seahawks have too much tied up on Flynn. A reasonable contract secured in the early stages of free agency? You don't say?

But nobody wants to talk about smart free agency moves do they? Let's go negative.

This is possibly the most over-covered week of anything we do in writing about the league, this first week of free agency. I knew it had gotten totally out of control on Saturday when Ralph Vacchiano of the New York Daily News tweeted: "Amazingly, I'm sensing angst among some Giants fans again about Jerry Reese's lack of offseason action.''

Who ever knew fans of NFL teams could be impatient and want to see action and movement by a team? What an unpredictable set of events that Giants fans have gotten impatient.

Williams signed a six-year, $96 million deal with the Bills on Friday, but as ProFootballTalk.com pointed out, the deal is really a two-year, $40 million contract -- with a $10.6 million roster bonus set to activate the final four years of the contract, similar to the way the $28 million option bonus would have activated Peyton Manning's final four contracted years with the Colts had they chosen to exercise the option.

See, this is what striking out in free agency and getting an expensive free agent can do for a team. The Bills have signed Mario Williams and now everything is fixed! The Bills defense now has zero holes in it and the Bills offense will never struggle again. See what investing a lot of money in one player can do? It can help you become successful in March, which is really the most important month to achieve success in the NFL.

But I thought the most compelling part of this deal was that Williams never left Buffalo once he got there Tuesday night.

That is compelling. Does Peter have a long, drawn-out story to relate to us about this? Of course he does.

"I'll tell you exactly how it happened,'' Nix told me Saturday. "When you're a rookie, you're bright-eyed, and you're excited, and you've never had this kind of money. Mario went through that before as the No. 1 overall pick in 2006. And he's a country boy who wasn't into the bells and whistles. In fact, he sold me on the plane ride back to Buffalo. He told me, 'I'm not a vocal leader. I'm not gonna make a lot of speeches.

$96 million for a player who doesn't want to be and isn't a leader? Forget having me sign on the dotted line, I will create my own dotted line upon which to sign.

Said Williams: "When I saw Jim's house, and the deer and turkey out there, it felt like really a country, home-type feeling. At least that's home to me. It was really important to me that I see the town, because I didn't know it. I'd never been here before. I like the small-town atmosphere. Plus, I knew Toronto was just a short trip over [the U.S.-Canada border]

Well of course being close to the U.S.-Canada border is important. Mario Williams needs access to free health care. Even someone making $96 million over five years doesn't want to overpay for health care.

New York's close by plane, Boston's close.

You are a millionaire. Anywhere is close when you signed a rookie contract worth $26 million guaranteed and later signed a $96 million contract.

The cold doesn't bother me.

If it does bother you, then purchase a house somewhere warmer. Hell, purchase three houses somewhere warmer. Hell, purchase an entire very small city and put a dome over it while blasting heat into it all day. You can do all of these things with $96 million.

I just wanted to find the right fit for me, and from the beginning, they showed me love.''

No matter what anyone tells you, love is money. So when he says the Bills showed him love, he means they paid him a lot of money.

I asked him if he traded the chance to win long-term for more money than he'd have been able to make elsewhere.

Williams went to N.C. State to play football. He knows there is more to life than winning football games.

"If I'm not mistaken,'' Williams said, not angrily but stridently, "this team beat New England last year. This team almost beat the Giants.

"BUT," Peter King said in response, "the Bills weren't a very good team last year and that means they won't be a very good team this year."

This is an any-given-Sunday league. I don't buy that we can't win. This is the NFL. New teams win every year. If that wasn't the case, teams in the big cities, the better cities, would win all the time. And you see that's not true.''

Peter King will hear none of this. The Bills were bad last year, so they will be bad again this year.

"Almost like it was destined that he come here,'' said Nix. "A couple times during the process I thought, Why'd we get into this? The downside was huge. If we lose him, I don't know how long it'd take for our fans to recover. They wanted him so bad. But you know, you've got to step up to the plate to have a chance to get a hit. Buffalo's got an inferiority complex. That's why it was so important we get Mario.''

Reasons given by the Bills General Manager, Buddy Nix, for signing Mario Williams:

1. It was destiny.
2. The fans wanted the Bills to sign him.
3. Buddy Nix needed to step up to the plate.
4. Buffalo has an inferiority complex.

I wonder where "he makes our team better in the short and long term and can help us win a Super Bowl" is on the list?

Reminds me what Texans owner Bob McNair said to me before the '06 draft -- Houston was drafting Williams over Reggie Bush and Vince Young because there was no way they could consistently beat Indianapolis without pressuring Peyton Manning.

So how did that go again? The Texans were 1-6 when playing the Colts when they had Peyton Manning and the Texans had Mario Williams. Clearly, this isn't Mario Williams' fault, but I think it serves the broader point that it takes more than one player to pressure an elite quarterback. Mario Williams is one step in that plan for the Bills.

In the last 10 years this franchise has been the most luckless, clueless, hapless club. To wit:

Peter is talking about the Miami Dolphins. I wouldn't focus too much on the luckless part and focus more on the hapless and clueless part.

3. The one you've all forgotten. Two days apart in early 2007, soon after Saban skulked off to Alabama (can't use that phrase enough), Miami interviewed two coordinator prospects -- among others -- to succeed Saban. The Dolphins favored offensive coordinator Cam Cameron of San Diego over Minnesota defensive coordinator Mike Tomlin. Cameron got the Miami job. Tomlin got the Pittsburgh job. Cameron went 1-15 and got fired. Tomlin went 10-6, won the AFC North and is 55-25 since, with a Super Bowl win.

Doesn't the fact Tomlin ended up as the head coach for the Steelers, which is as stable and successful franchise as the NFL has ever seen, count for anything. Are we really to believe if Tomlin had been hired by the Dolphins he would be 55-25 and have a Super Bowl victory at this point in his coaching career? Not at all. So Peter can criticize the Dolphins for the Cam Cameron hiring, but he should also acknowledge that Tomlin was hired by a more successful and stable organization. This most likely helped to contribute to Tomlin's success.

The Ross-Ireland daily double has failed to lure Jim Harbaugh and Jeff Fisher, and has failed to land Peyton Manning or Matt Flynn either.

It's absolutely amazing how much failure the Dolphins have endured in the last 10 years. And the way this year is beginning -- losing out on Fisher, Manning and Flynn -- I'm amazed that Ross is putting up with it without blowing a gasket.

This is not the right time to blow a gasket. The correct time to blow a gasket was earlier in the offseason, not one month before the draft. If Ross isn't putting the right people in charge to make the Dolphins successful then he only has to look in the mirror to see who is really to blame for the team's lack of success.

The other day, Browns president Mike Holmgren inferred strongly to his season ticket holders in a conference call that he felt the trade St. Louis made with Washington was influenced by the relationship between the two coaches involved -- good friend Mike Shanahan of the Redskins and Jeff Fisher of the Rams.

But according to Rams GM Les Snead, that's not the whole story

Wait, wait...so Mike Holmgren is alleging the Rams and Redskins benefited from a close relationship between their head coaches and the Rams response was to deny this? Yet another shocking turn of events. I thought for sure the Rams would immediately acknowledge this is true.

Coming in Tuesday's column (barring a Manning decision or other big news): A one-week review of free agency hits and misses.

Looks like we aren't getting that one-week review of hits and misses. Can't say we aren't better for it.

I'm amazed that the Dallas Cowboys paid Orton -- who I consider the best of the available backups, and not by a small amount -- a $5 million signing bonus for a five-year deal that will likely void to three years. I understand sleeping better at night, which the Cowboys will do now that they have maybe the best backup quarterback in football as insurance for Tony Romo instead of the iffy Stephen McGee. But I've never heard of paying a guy you hope will never play a $5 million signing bonus.

Is this really a bad move? Nearly anyone who follows the NFL knows that when the starting quarterback for a team goes down, it can ruin an entire season. Ask the Colts, Texans, Dolphins (to a lesser extent), and the Rams...and that's just for the 2011 season. So is paying $5 million for three years really that crazy for a guy who can win games for a team when the starting quarterback goes down? Absolutely not.

Not every team can afford to do this, but if a team has the money then why not spend some of that money in case your starter goes down in order to ensure you have a decent backup quarterback? It makes sense. And no, I am not saying this because I think Kyle Orton is an incredibly average to above average starter and I have defended him in the past. I'm saying this because it makes sense to have a good backup quarterback if you can afford it. I think this was a really smart move.

I didn't travel anywhere in the past seven days, but I did have a bit of an odd New York experience. Saturday was the first St. Patrick's Day I have experienced as a Manhattan resident. I just figured, OK, big St. Patty's parade up Fifth Avenue, lots of people, everybody in green, whatever.

On Sunday morning, when Bailey and I went out for her morning spin through the neighborhood (and you know how dogs are -- they like to eat whatever their tongues can scrape off the sidewalk), I had to, in the span of six blocks, tug her past three areas of, shall we say, human sickness. Aaah, the benefits of living in the center of the universe.

Yeah, New York isn't the center of the universe. Peter King typing those words and letting the public read them pretty much reinforces my previously held opinion of him. New York is a great city. It is not the center of the universe, no matter how much Peter wants to believe it is.

"Congrats to Mario Williams signing in Buffalo... far away from the NFC North, thanks big guy''

-- @AaronRodgers12, the Green Bay quarterback, Thursday afternoon, after it was announced Williams would be signing with the Bills.

Meaning: Thank God he'll be in the AFC and not signing with the Bears.

Thanks for the explanation Peter. We're all really stupid and are glad you had to explain this to us.

"Ditto.''

-- @Staff_9, Lions quarterback Matthew Stafford, Thursday afternoon, after Rodgers' tweet.

Meaning:

Yeah Peter, we fucking get what this means. Your readers aren't stupid and don't need every little thing explained to us. There is intelligent life outside the center of the universe.

1. I think I still don't understand Reggie Wayne's rush to re-sign with Indianapolis, unless he was sure the new Peyton Manning team wouldn't want him.

Maybe he wanted to continue playing for the Colts? Or is too obvious of an answer?

5. I think the cream of the crop was pillaged in my top 50 free agents, to the point where only four of the top 23 are left as of Monday morning: Peyton Manning (No. 1), Stephen Tulloch (9), Brodrick Bunkley (10) and Alex Smith (13). I'm a little surprised left tackle Demetrius Bell (30) and running back Mike Tolbert (31) aren't gone yet, because teams are interested.

A few hours after Peter wrote this Manning and Tolbert were signed. I'm not sure I can appreciate a list that has Marquis Colston listed below Chad Henne, Brandon Lloyd, and John Abraham though. How is Colston below these three players on Peter's list?

9. I think the Patriots signing Anthony Gonzalez is borderline insignificant, the equivalent of the Red Sox signing a Carlos Silva.

As always, a Patriots signing can only be sufficiently explained when compared to a Red Sox signing.

"The signing of Adalius Thomas is just like the Red Sox signing of John Lackey!"

He's had hamstring, knee, ankle, groin and concussion issues since 2009. Good camp guy with speed, but it'll be an upset if he's anything more than that.

So you can see how the comparison holds up. Anthony Gonzalez is a fast, injury-prone wide receiver while Carlos Silva is a 280 pound pitcher whose durability hasn't really been a huge concern. The signings are really the same.

a. I had Bobcat Fever over the weekend. Yes, I'm an Ohio U. alum, and there's a good chance this column would have been up sooner this morning if I hadn't been so totally wound up by my alma mater's win over South Florida Sunday night.

They got two. Now they'll be greedy and unafraid, I expect. All they have on the horizon is North Carolina. And then maybe Kansas.

Yeah, "maybe Kansas." Good luck with that. Ohio has beaten an overrated Michigan team and South Florida team that can't score points. Up next, a team that isn't overrated and can score a ton of points. After playing North Carolina, I see the Ohio Bobcats next playing basketball competitively against each other in practice or at a pick-up game in the university gym.

c. OK, all you Tar Heel grads. I'm open for bets on OU-UNC Friday night.

I bet UNC wins by 15 points at a minimum, with or without Kendall Marshall.

k. Coffeenerdness: Memo to restaurants everywhere: Why do you not respect espresso and coffee drinkers? I've almost given up on finding good coffee after a meal.

You can't find good coffee in the center of the universe? What kind of world do we live in that a person can't find good coffee after a meal? This is America, not some poor poverty stricken country that Peter visits for two weeks and talks about how terrible life is there only to come back to America and demand decent after-meal coffee. Good after-meal coffee isn't a luxury, it is a necessity.

m. Same thing every year: I watch 10 seconds of college basketball all season, and then I can't wait for the tournament to come on. I think it's the sudden-death component of it all, and the glee from teams like Norfolk State and Lehigh. Fantastic.

There were no overtime games this year. The NCAA Tournament was fun, but a bit underwhelming when it comes to exciting finishes. But hey, I'm glad Peter still loves it.

o. Happy 14th birthday, Emma Pacifico.

I'm pretty sure this isn't even a real person. I feel like Peter is wishing Happy Birthday to fictional characters now.