6 comments Skip Bayless Further Confirms His Awfulness by Writing about Peyton Manning's Legacy

This article was written before the Super Bowl. I wish I had a chance to post it prior to the Super Bowl, but I couldn't find a way to squeeze it in. Fortunately, bad journalism has no expiration date. Skip Bayless makes Peyton Manning's legacy all about Skip Bayless. See Skip Bayless thinks that Peyton Manning is a great regular season quarterback, but this makes Skip Bayless wonder why Manning doesn't play as well in the postseason, which makes Skip Bayless question Manning's legacy. Mostly Manning's legacy is about Skip Bayless and his perception of Peyton Manning. Skip isn't able to discuss Manning's NFL legacy with any type of impartiality or perspective because Skip doesn't know how to make any discussion of an athlete not about him. So while Skip was right about how difficult the Seahawks defense is, not shockingly he makes Manning's legacy about him.

The problem with Skip and so many sportswriters is the idea their reactions are based mainly on the immediacy of the event. John Elway lost three Super Bowls early in his career and won two Super Bowls in his last two seasons. Idiot sportswriters only remember Elway going out a winner, so his legacy is that of a winner, despite having a career losing record in the Super Bowl. Tom Brady won three Super Bowls early in his career and hasn't won another since, so now certain idiots question whether he's good enough to win a Super Bowl. Peyton Manning didn't win a Super Bowl early in his career, but won one in the middle of his career and has lost two Super Bowls since. So obviously there needs to be a discussion about his legacy. Let's forget he's still one Super Bowl loss behind John Elway, yet it doesn't matter because Elway went out a winner. The immediacy is all that matters and in the immediate time, Peyton Manning can't win a Super Bowl and has a losing career playoff record. Summing up Manning's career legacy based on his postseason postseason is just as stupid as summing up Jack Morris's career legacy based on his postseason performance.

I've never been the biggest Peyton Manning fan.

I've never cared what you think about a certain athlete. Your opinion is usually stupid. LeBron James sucks, Tim Tebow is great...it's all very confusing and obvious trolling.

I've long admired his dedication and the dignity with which he treats the game and its history. But even now I remain skeptical of his postseason legacy, which has never measured up to a status I conceded three years ago: Greatest Regular-Season Quarterback Ever.

So Skip remains skeptical of Manning's postseason legacy because Manning isn't as successful in the postseason as he is in the regular season and Manning can't live up to what Skip Bayless thinks about Manning during the regular season. So Bayless is skeptical of Manning because he can't live up to the expectations Bayless has for Manning. Sure, makes sense.

Of course, for Peyton Manning, whose little brother Eli has two Super Bowl wins (over Tom Brady!)

Two Super Bowl wins over Tom Brady makes these authentic two Super Bowl wins. Tom Brady has Super Bowl victories over Kurt Warner, Jake Delhomme, and Donovan McNabb, so Brady really only has one Super Bowl victory in the mind of Skip Bayless.

to Peyton's one (over Rex Grossman?) while Eli has also led the NFL in interceptions three times, Greatest Regular-Season Quarterback must be starting to feel like a consolation prize.

And of course Peyton won his Super Bowl over Rex Grossman, who apparently was playing offense and defense, so this isn't an impressive Super Bowl victory. Nevermind that Manning had to beat Trent Green, Steve McNair, and Tom Brady on his way to winning that Super Bowl, that doesn't matter to Skip Bayless. Nevermind that Manning had to beat Philip Rivers and Tom Brady this year to make the Super Bowl, that probably doesn't matter to Skip. Only the opposing quarterback in the Super Bowl matters to him and none of the quarterbacks Manning beat on the way to the Super Bowl is impressive to Skip, mostly because Skip isn't capable of using logic through a complete line of thought without yelling. It's not like the 2006 Bears had a good defense or anything of course.

But now, the mouth of Seattle Seahawks cornerback Richard Sherman has opened and out has flown, like a fire-breathing dragon, the greatest opportunity Peyton could have ever wished for: a Super Bowl foe who's a nine out of 10 on degree-of-difficulty scale.

The 2013 Seattle Seahawks are 4th in the NFL in rushing yards per game, 26th in passing yards per game, 1st in passing yards allowed per game, and 7th in rushing yards allowed per game.

The 2006 Chicago Bears were 15th in rushing yards per game, 14th in passing yards per game, 11th in passing yards allowed per game, and 6th in rushing yards allowed per game. The Bears definitely weren't the 2013 Seahawks, but they weren't terrible either.

My point is that a Super Bowl victory is a Super Bowl victory and Skip Bayless will always find a reason to criticize Peyton Manning if he chooses to do so. Look no further than Skip criticizing LeBron James even after he has two NBA titles.

Peyton is about to throw into the teeth of the Legion of Boom. The '85 Bears mostly terrorized passers before they threw. Sherman & Co. more often make QBs and receivers pay after the ball has been thrown -- with interceptions and concussions.

But football is a team game. Peyton played terribly against the Seahawks, but his offensive line didn't help him, and quite frankly, that's the first game where I really saw his lack of arm strength has shown itself to be a liability. The Seahawks just beat the Broncos in every facet of the game. It wasn't a Peyton Manning-caused loss.

So, with Sherman relegating Peyton to Best Supporting Actor next week -- with the sports world hanging on Sherman's every word about how devastating Seattle's secondary can be -- the credibility of Peyton's challenge will rise by the sound bite.

To Skip's disappointment, Richard Sherman didn't give many good sound bites the week of the Super Bowl. I think Skip just doesn't like Peyton's legacy because he is angry Peyton took Tebow's job as the starting quarterback for the Broncos. Also, it is hilarious for Skip Bayless to question the legacy of Peyton Manning while still championing Tim Tebow as a viable NFL starter.

Yep: For Peyton, Seattle is a IX in Super Bowl degree of difficulty.

Yes, it was. That's why it's not fair to judge his legacy based solely on the outcome of this Super Bowl. The Seahawks have a historically great defense. Football is a team game and Manning can't block for himself, catch the football or make his arm any stronger at the age of 37.

For now, I rank him no higher on my all-time list than sixth, behind (in order) Joe Montana, Brady, John Elway, Roger Staubach and Brett Favre.

I'm not falling for this shitty trolling. Brett Favre has one Super Bowl ring in two tries. At least Peyton was better in the regular season than Favre and he has made one Super Bowl than Brett Favre made. I'm not falling for this trolling attempt and will not comment on it.

Until his two recent home wins over the San Diego Chargers and New England Patriots, Peyton had lost three straight playoff games. I'm sorry, but, by Peyton Manning standards, that's sorry.

Yes, his postseason record seems to be at odds with his regular season record. Is it really fair to hold Manning to his regular season standard when he is playing better teams consistently in the playoffs? Skip is essentially saying that Manning is ruining his legacy because he can't match his own regular season legacy. Couldn't the fact Manning doesn't live up to his standards in the regular season just serve as an example of how good Manning is in the regular season? Isn't this part of his legacy too?

But what if he added IX exclamation points to his regular-season record 55 touchdown passes and 5,477 passing yards by lowering the boom on the Legion of Boom in Super Bowl XLVIII and forcing Sherman to say Peyton made him look mediocre? What if Denver wins, say, 38-10 and DeMaryius catches three TD passes?

Then Peyton Manning would have had an outstanding regular season and capped it off with an outstanding Super Bowl. It didn't happen and the Seahawks offense made the Broncos offense look mediocre. Not all of this can be placed on Peyton Manning. He didn't fumble the football, he didn't snap the football over his own head on the first play of the game, and he didn't give up a touchdown return on the first play of the second half. Yes, he threw two interceptions, including one for a touchdown, but the Seattle defense was swarming. Sometimes you just get your ass kicked.

Good gracious, a few might even leap to the prisoner-of-the-moment conclusion that Peyton's sensational longevity capped off by the greatest regular season ever and a Super Bowl destruction of Sherman's defense pole-vaults Peyton past (dare I say) Montana.

I love how Skip accuses others of making a "prisoner-of-the-moment" conclusion when he is writing an entire column stating, "If Peyton Manning wins this Super Bowl then I will re-think his entire legacy." Skip Bayless sucks and he's a troll. He's so terrible and incompetent at writing, I almost feel sympathy for him. He talks about others leaping to conclusions after the Super Bowl, but he's willing to change his opinion about Peyton Manning had his Broncos won the Super Bowl over the Seahawks.

For sure, I would have to rethink Peyton's greatness.

But this is no "prisoner-of-the-moment" conclusion of course.

Peyton's increasingly happy feet made me happy when he struggled against my Commodores, and I lost more respect when he lost to Florida all three times he faced the Gators.

Well, at least Skip Bayless didn't make up his mind about Manning before he even entered the NFL. That's good to know.

I've been pretty good predicting the NFL success of college QBs -- with one glaring swing and miss: I said I would take Ryan Leaf over Peyton Manning. I was not alone. In fact, that was the first and last time I took to the bank what several college coaches told me: Leaf was a gunslinger who played quarterback like a linebacker and was made of tougher stuff than Peyton Manning. I obviously had no idea Leaf battled demons that soon would destroy his career.

So clearly it wasn't Skip's fault that he was wrong about Ryan Leaf. There were circumstances out of Skip's control. And also, Skip is wrong about Peyton Manning if he lost respect for Manning prior to Manning even playing in the NFL. Manning may excel in a timing-based offense with a lot of short throws (or it feels that way these days) and have a career losing playoff record, but he's one of the best quarterbacks in NFL history.

Then again, I must admit I've always preferred my all-time great quarterbacks to play with more rifle-armed flair than Peyton ever has.

The exception to this of course being Tim Tebow. He was more shotgun-armed. He threw the ball and it sort sprayed all over the field and would occasionally hit it's target.

From the start, Peyton played NFL quarterback as if he were a hyper chess master. He created a game above the mud-and-blood game of football, a mind game with which he could toy with superior athletes. His arm strength was pretty average, but his decision-making and release were speed of light and his accuracy deadly.

I always love how NFL guys seem to leave out Peyton's pocket awareness when describing his great abilities. Even in the Super Bowl, Peyton got rid of the ball (granted, a couple of times to the opposing team) as opposed to getting sacked.

Yet, despite all the weapons at his fingertips -- Marvin Harrison for 11 seasons, Reggie Wayne for 10, Dallas Clark for eight, Edgerrin James for seven -- those teams too often failed on the playoff stage against more physical teams that could turn the game back into football.

Manning hasn't always played with the best defenses either. Even this year's Broncos defense was missing their best pass rusher and cornerback in the Super Bowl. It's no excuse, but it's not a coincidence that Peyton Manning won a Super Bowl during the postseason when the Colts defense had a healthy Bob Sanders and stopped the opposing team from running the ball. 

Peyton finally broke through in his ninth season, beating the Bears 29-17 in the rain in Super Bowl XLI. Peyton's team was a seven-point favorite. Degree of difficulty: four.
 
But give Peyton this: The real Super Bowl that season was the AFC Championship Game in Indy, in which the Colts rallied from 21-6 down against New England to win 38-34. Peyton threw for 349 yards, with one touchdown pass and one interception.

I don't understand why "we" need to give Peyton that. Skip Bayless is the one writing the column stating that Peyton Manning's legacy needs help and that his Super Bowl victory over the Bears was a degree of difficulty of a four. Skip seems to be under the impression that his opinion of Peyton Manning reflects the reader's opinion of Peyton Manning.

Peyton's Colts, of course, lost Super Bowl XLIV to Drew Brees' New Orleans Saints 31-17 (after beating Mark Sanchez's New York Jets 30-17 in Indy for the AFC title).

I like how Skip says it is Mark Sanchez's Jets team as if Peyton putting up 30 points against the Jets #1 ranked defense doesn't mean as much because the opposing quarterback was Mark Sanchez. The fact Manning put up 30 points on a very good defense doesn't count in Skip's book because this didn't happen in the Super Bowl. Skip will always find a way to take credit away from those teams and athletes he simply doesn't like.

The Colts were a five-point favorite over a New Orleans team with the No. 1 offense but just the 25th-ranked defense. Degree of difficulty: five.

And these degree of difficulty rankings are not subjective at all. Also, if the Saints are a degree of difficulty of 5 for a #1 ranked offense and a #25 ranked defense then shouldn't a Super Bowl against a team with the #17 ranked offense and #1 ranked defense be a degree of difficulty of 7 or something, but not a 9? After all, it makes sense to bump the degree of difficulty up two numbers for a #1 ranked unit and a #17 ranked unit. Bumping the degree of difficulty up to a 9 doesn't make sense given Skip's own degree of difficulty rankings. I know, I know, I shouldn't use logic to argue with Skip Bayless.

Most memorable moment: The Colts were driving to tie the score at 24 when, with 3:24 left, Peyton's pass intended for Wayne was intercepted by Tracy Porter and returned 74 yards for the game-breaking TD. Hall of … Blame?

I'm not going to defend this pass from Peyton Manning, but why were the Colts driving down the field at this point in the game? Because they were running the ball really, really well? Actually, they didn't run the ball once on that drive. So Skip acts like the Colts were driving down the field and then Peyton had to step in and throw an interception. Manning was 5-7 for 44 yards on the drive until he threw the interception. Blaming him for the interception is fine, but wanting to act like the Colts were driving for any reason other than Manning's quarterbacking skill is not fine.

Last season, his first in Denver, Peyton did what Peyton often does, delivering the AFC's No. 1 seed off a 13-3 regular season. And Peyton did his part to build a 35-28 lead over eventual Super Bowl champ Baltimore. But, with 31 seconds left, a 70-yard Hail Flacco TD pass forced overtime.

And again, this wasn't Manning's fault. He was winning the game until the Denver defense had a brain fart and Rahim Moore let Jacoby Jones get behind him.

And in the second overtime, the Greatest Regular-Season Quarterback Ever made a shockingly poor decision, throwing a lifeless pass back across his body into the strength of the defense. That interception set up Baltimore's winning field goal.

It was a terrible throw at a terrible time. There was no excuse for that pass. To claim Manning underachieves in the playoffs one would have to ignore the fact that football is a team game and he had done his part to beat the Ravens in regulation. I'm not big on excuses, but when arguing about Manning's legacy there needs to be some perspective given to why Manning had to even throw a pass in overtime.

Reminder: Montana went 4-for-4 in Super Bowls and (I thought) deserved all four MVPs.

Reminder: Montana is considered the best Super Bowl quarterback of all-time, so comparing Peyton Manning to the best ever and saying he doesn't measure up merely acknowledges that Manning isn't the best quarterback in Super Bowl history. This is known. Manning's legacy isn't diminished simply because he isn't better in the Super Bowl than the best Super Bowl quarterback of all-time.

Jerry Rice (11 catches for 215 yards) was MVP of Super Bowl XXIII even though Montana threw for 357 yards, including the winning 10-yard TD pass with 34 seconds left.

And the fact Montana played with Jerry Rice, who is the greatest wide receiver in NFL history, had something to do with Montana's Super Bowl performances. Rice performed well in the Super Bowl as well, which obviously helped Montana go 4-for-4 in Super Bowls.

So, how much has Peyton rebuilt his legacy this postseason?

After the Super Bowl loss, it's the same old shit and the same old narrative.

And cold, hard fact: After the Patriots lost their Richard Sherman -- Aqib Talib -- four plays into the second quarter on what Bill Belichick basically called a Wes Welker cheap shot, Peyton should have won and did, 26-16.

Oh ok, so the Broncos should have won at that point in the game and so Manning doesn't get any credit from Skip Bayless for beating Tom Brady. Funny how that works isn't it? I said earlier that Skip was always going to find a way to not give Manning credit no matter what happens and this is proof of that. Skip states Manning hasn't ever beaten a really great team to win a Super Bowl, while ignoring the great quarterbacks Manning has beaten on his way to leading his team to the Super Bowl. But this AFC Championship victory over Tom Brady doesn't count because Aqib Talib got injured. Skip will always find a way to take away credit. He is always has a horseshit excuse.

Not only was Peyton unsacked in either home game, he was touched only once in each game. Seattle is tied for eighth in sacks.

Manning is good at avoiding being sacked, so going unsacked in both games prior to the Super Bowl wasn't simply the effect of him being the beneficiary of an outstanding offensive line. His pocket presence had something to do with his not being sacked as well. 

Big picture, Peyton at 37 hasn't received nearly enough credit for battling back from four neck procedures and not being able to throw a ball 10 yards. What a second act.

This is false. Peyton Manning was named MVP for the fifth time and was named "Sportsman of the Year" by Sports Illustrated. He's received plenty of credit for battling back from four neck surgeries.

And, Colts fans, I have not eased off my stance that your team made an all-time mistake easing Peyton out the back door in favor of Andrew Luck. Peyton just keeps putting his team in premium positions to make Super Bowl runs.

Skip Bayless is ridiculous in the positions he takes. He tells us that Peyton Manning is the greatest regular season quarterback of all-time, but he has a legacy of failure in the postseason. Along with the fact Manning is on the wrong side of 30, this would make a person think he liked the idea of the Colts releasing Manning and drafting Andrew Luck. But no, Skip doesn't like Peyton Manning enough to give him credit for playoff successes or take away some blame for playoff failures, but he likes Manning enough to think the Colts should have kept Manning over Andrew Luck. But of course. The problem is Bayless has ragged on Andrew Luck and he has to find a way to rectify his position that Manning is a playoff choker (and Manning is going to be 38 years old next year) while stating the Colts should have stuck with Manning over Luck. It's hard for him to do this.

Now Sherman's team has fallen from Super Bowl heaven into Peyton's path. Now, a week from Sunday, it could feel as if Peyton Manning wins two or three Super Bowls that night. I'll be rooting for him.

Even if Peyton Manning and the Broncos had won the Super Bowl, Skip Bayless would have eventually found a way to take away credit from Manning. One has to look no further than LeBron James and his two titles with the Heat to see that Skip Bayless opens his mouth crowing until he is proven wrong and then only opens his mouth to make horseshit excuses for being wrong.

2 comments Terence Moore Seems to Have Issues with Problems That Are Complete Non-Issues

Terence Moore likes to take on the real non-issues in baseball. He takes on the issues that seemingly no one else really has strong feelings about and tries to make them into issues, like the six man rotation, celebrations, and those days when the iron men didn't exist existed. As I have well-documented, Terence hates expanded replay as well. That of course is an actual issue and not something random that Terence just seems to dislike. Terence also doesn't like that Tony La Russa and Greg Maddux are going to enter the Hall of Fame without a team logo on their cap. In the realm of issues, this is pretty low on the totem pole. When Terence isn't railing against expanded replay, comparing any and everything to the Big Red Machine, or cursing at the clouds for the existence of rain he doesn't have much else to write about. So the small things are what he targets his ire at and then in his column he tends to contradict himself or accidentally point out why his point of view is wrong.

I'm a Braves fan. I really would have liked Greg Maddux to go into the Hall of Fame with a Braves logo on his hat. I was disappointed when I found out he would not have the Braves logo on his hat. Then I found out Maddux didn't want a logo on his hat and that was that. It's his career and his Hall of Fame bust, let him do what he wants. Who am I, and who is Terence Moore, to tell Greg Maddux what team's logo should go on his Hall of Fame hat? The same goes for Tony La Russa. If he doesn't want a certain team's hat on his bust, so be it. But hey, Terence Moore has a perception of how he wants the Hall of Fame to look and he'll be damned if the 86 other Hall of Fame members with blank logos on their hat will deter him from making a big deal out of La Russa/Maddux not having a logo on their hat.

I'm sorry, but Greg Maddux and Tony La Russa have to choose. 

But see, they really don't. Shortly, Terence will point out 86 members of the baseball Hall of Fame do not have a logo on their hat, yet Terence insists Maddux and La Russa have to choose...even though Terence Moore has given a good example of why they don't have to choose. There is a precedent of certain Hall of Fame inductees not having a team's logo on their cap.

They announced Thursday that they've decided in conjunction with Baseball Hall of Fame officials not to have a logo on the cap of their bronzed plaque in Cooperstown, N.Y. Since they prospered for several teams, they said it wouldn't be fair to pick one over the other for such an honor.

I want Maddux to have a Braves logo, but I think he has the right to choose the logo on his Hall of Fame hat.

I hear them. I disagree, but I hear them.

But you don't hear them. They don't feel they can choose a logo and they don't have to choose a logo. It's their decision.

In recent times, Catfish Hunter had the same dilemma. He was among the reasons the A's formed their dynasty during the early 1970s along the way to three consecutive World Series championships. Hunter also helped push the Yankees back into prominence later that decade. Hunter said he cherished both A's owner Charlie Finley and Yanks owner George Steinbrenner, so he became one of the 86 players without a logo on his Hall of Fame cap.

Terence begins this sentence with, "In recent times..." as if Maddux and La Russa not choosing a logo on their hat happened fifty years ago and wasn't more recent than Catfish Hunter not choosing a logo. You can understand my inability to understand why Terence thinks Maddux/La Russa have to choose a logo when they really don't HAVE to choose a logo.

Yogi Berra was another one, but it had nothing to do with his feud with Steinbrenner that kept the legendary Yankees catcher away from his old team for nearly a decade.

You see how Terence Moore can submarine his own point? He seems to do this consistently when writing a column where he takes a certain viewpoint. He takes that viewpoint and then includes information that ruins his point or shows where the fallacy in his thinking may be. Obviously I would prefer he acknowledge an opposing viewpoint as opposed to being like Gregg Easterbrook and just lying to his readers, but Terence doesn't really do anything to counter the opposing viewpoint. So by not countering the opposing viewpoint or explaining where that view is wrong, he makes it look like he's making a poor argument.

Terence starts this column off stating Maddux/La Russa have to choose a logo for their Hall of Fame plaque, then proceeds to list a few of the 86 other baseball Hall of Fame inductees who don't have a logo on their cap. This shows, guess what, Maddux and La Russa DON'T have to choose a logo and it's no big fucking deal. End of story. Yet, Terence goes on.

"You have to remember that, back during that time, when Berra entered the Hall of Fame, choosing a logo for your cap wasn't that big of a deal," said Dave Kaplan, who runs the Yogi Berra Museum and Learning Center at Montclair State University

Yes, and it is still not that big of a deal. If Yogi Berra, who spent every year but one of his MLB career with the Yankees, doesn't go into the Hall of Fame with a Yankees logo on his cap then it's not a big deal for Tony La Russa and Greg Maddux to enter the Hall of Fame with no team logo on their cap.

"If you look at Yogi's plaque, it's more of a profile, so it doesn't matter as much if his cap has a logo."

Well then make La Russa and Maddux's plaque into more of a profile. Problem fixed.

Actually, it does matter. When you say Yogi, you think pinstripes.

Which is exactly why it doesn't matter if Yogi Berra has a Yankees cap on or not. When you think of him, you think of the Yankees. No cap needed.

Honus Wagner. Rogers Hornsby. Johnny Mize. Nap Lajoie. They are among the others joining Berra and Hunter without a logo for their Hall of Fame cap, and they all have that distinction for various reasons.

I'm sure many are logical.

I would count "This manager/player spent a decade or more with two different teams " as a logical reason for no logo on their Hall of Fame cap. It makes sense, even if I as a Braves fan don't necessarily like it.

The ones that aren't? Well, either Hall of Fame officials, the inductees (if they are still living) or the representatives of anybody in Cooperstown without a logo on his cap should change the situation.

I find it interesting that Mr. "Don't Change Anything about Baseball Because Tradition is the Best" wants the Hall of Fame to change the plaques in order to put logos on the caps of those inductees who don't have logos on their caps. It's terrible to expand replay in any way to adjust to modern technology, but sure, let's change the plaques in the baseball Hall of Fame to represent the modern day thought.

If they really think about it, they'll discover that one team from a Hall of Famer's past was either greatly or slightly superior than the rest of them. Choose that one.

Of course this is a matter of opinion, but nonetheless I still like the idea Terence Moore wants to change the contents of a museum to fit modern thought.

Trying to rectify the past is difficult, but we have a splendid chance to affect the present and the future. Which is why I'm urging Maddux and La Russa to pick a logo for their Hall of Fame plaques between now and the time they take the stage in Cooperstown in July.

It really doesn't matter at all. Terence Moore is excellent at picking out hot-button issues that aren't hot-button at all.

"I feel good [about picking nobody]," said Maddux, talking to reporters in Arlington on Thursday between working at a pitching minicamp for the Rangers. "I spent half my career in Chicago and half my career in Atlanta. I came up a Cub, played there for six years and went back for three more. I was in Atlanta for 11 years. It comes out to about the same amount of time in both cities. Love both places. Obviously, I feel like I had more success as a Brave."

Why shouldn't Greg Maddux be able to choose to have no logo on his Hall of Fame plaque? He certainly earned his Hall of Fame induction and I think that means he earned the opportunity to have some input on which team's logo will be on his cap or if there is a team's logo at all.

You've guessed it: Maddux is more Atlanta grits than Chicago pizza.

Except he doesn't consider himself to be more Atlanta postseason choking than Chicago postseason choking. I think this has to count for something. Plus, there are 86 other members of the Hall of Fame without logos on their cap and miraculously the baseball Hall of Fame has continued standing and the sun will rise to shine another day.

Just like La Russa is more Gateway Arch than Golden Gate Bridge, and we won't even talk about his White Sox years.

Yes, let's not talk about the third team that La Russa managed where he spent eight years of his career. That would just further muddy the waters and help to prove the point that La Russa may not have one definitive team he should be associated with when being inducted into the baseball Hall of Fame.

In fact, the La Russa-led A's made three consecutive World Series trips through 1990, and they won it all in 1989. He also reinvented Dennis Eckersley as a closer. Now, the former Oakland starter is in Cooperstown, where La Russa is headed -- without the logo of either the White Sox or the A's on the cap of his plaque.

Oh my God, the horror! Now those people who visit the baseball Hall of Fame will have to read La Russa's plaque that describe his accomplishments as a manager and then be very confused as to which MLB team they must associate La Russa with the most. It's not enough the baseball Hall of Fame will list the teams and accomplishments of La Russa on the plaque, he must have a logo and be associated with one certain team or it's the end of baseball as we know it. It's like the advent of the designated hitter all over again.

While La Russa won three pennants and that World Series championship with the A's, he captured three NL pennants and two Fall Classic titles with the Cards. There also was the longevity factor: He spent 10 years in Oakland compared to 16 in St. Louis.

So La Russa goes in as a Cardinal, and Maddux goes in as a Brave.

I still don't see how it matters. Their achievements with each team will be noted on their Hall of Fame plaque regardless.

See how easy that is?

It's almost as easy as an umpire viewing a replay to determine whether the runner's foot tagged first base before the ball got into the first baseman's glove. 

4 comments MMQB Review: Violations of the Code of Conduct Edition

Peter King allowed anonymous GM's to anonymously discuss Michael Sam in last week's MMQB. See, none of these GM's were willing to go on the record about Sam, but they wanted the world to know THEY weren't going to hold Sam's sexuality against him when it comes to where he gets drafted, but they know OTHER GM's would. But none of the GM's Peter talked to would hold it against Sam, it's just they didn't want to go on the record saying so and Peter knew they wouldn't go on record...despite the fact other GM's did eventually go on record with their opinion of Sam's draft status. This week Peter talks about Jonathan Martin, Michael Sam (maybe he'll find some more anonymous GM's bravely willing to criticize Sam anonymously), spends almost 25% of MMQB talking about hockey, and finally gets around to talking about NFL news/scoops in his "Ten Things He Thinks He Thinks." It's not like MMQB is a football column nor is it as if most people read MMQB to find out inside information about the sport of football from a guy who has a huge Rolodex of NFL contacts. Not at all, people read MMQB to find out what Peter thinks about hockey, Cate Blanchett, and what his favorite Tweets of the Week are. Sadly, Peter probably believes this is true.

Before we all get totally depressed about the NFL’s South Beach Locker Room Reality Show, something good to start your week: T.J. Oshie.

Let's talk about hockey. It's not like this is supposed to be a column about the NHL.

Did you notice what Oshie did Saturday, seconds after he scored his fourth goal of the shootout against Russia—in the eighth round of the shootout, against some of the best scorers on the planet—to give the United States a 3-2 victory in a game that wasn’t for a medal but had the intensity of the seventh game of the Stanley Cup? He slid the puck through Russian goalie Sergei Bobrovsky’s legs for the winner, whirled, raised his arms in jubilation, and then immediately pointed to his own goalie, Jonathan Quick.

“What was that about?’’ I asked Oshie on Sunday.

Really, Peter? Oshie has just scored a goal to win the game for the United States in a shootout and you can't figure out why he pointed towards his own goalie after the shootout was over? The answer to this question is shockingly obvious. Of course Oshie was pointing to Quick because Quick managed to stop the Russians from scoring a goal and allowed Oshie to win the hockey game for the United States in a shootout. You should not have to ask this question. It's obvious.

“Well,’’ Oshie said from Russia, “it was a two-man team there. I have to put the puck in the net, and he has to stop it from going in the net. 

Then Oshie followed this up with his own question for Peter, "Why in the hell did you think I pointed to my own goalie after we had won a shootout for the United States? I just like pointing?"

How do you not root for Oshie and his mates?

I don't know Peter. I don't think anyone in the United States is actively rooting against the United States men's hockey team. It seems easy to root against the United States if you are a citizen of another country, so that is how you don't root for Oshie and his mates.

Much more with Oshie, and on the hockey game, later in the column.

Great because this column is called Monday Morning Goalie isn't it? If so, then hockey fits right in and feel completely free to not report any NFL news so your readers can find out which quotes and Tweets you thought were the most interesting, in between making obvious comments about hockey and complaining about having to travel so much. Really Peter, MMQB is about you. It's not like the column is supposed to be a weekly useful resource about the latest NFL news as told by a sportswriter who has deep connections in the NFL and can better inform the audience as to what this NFL news may or may not mean. Really, tell us how good of an actress Cate Blanchett is, because that's why your readers read MMQB.

It’s time for Roger Goodell to earn his $44 million—if that absurd sum is possible for anyone running any sports venture. It’s time for him to professionalize professional football.

While I agree, I also disagree in some way. The reason the NFL can run the way it does and get around the monopoly rules here in the United States is because each NFL team is considered a separate entity. I do agree that Goodell should come down hard on the Dolphins or at least ensure what has happened in the Dolphins locker room is at least enough of a warning to the rest of the NFL teams to ensure similar behavior isn't happening in their locker room. I don't agree that Goodell should be responsible for making sure on a micro-level that this behavior isn't happening in the locker room of NFL teams. It's Goodell's job to punish and set a standard that NFL teams must follow, I agree with this, but it's up to the NFL teams to police the behavior in NFL locker rooms. So I think creating a written code of conduct for an NFL locker room seems incredibly difficult to achieve and on a micro-level it's not Goodell's job to professionalize professional football.

Goodell can set a standard, but he isn't capable of enforcing that behavior on a day-to-day basis. This situation that occurred with Richie Incognito and the Dolphins team isn't because Roger Goodell did a poor job of setting a standard of what should happen in an NFL locker room. Honestly, Goodell shouldn't have to tell grown men how to behave in a locker room, but apparently that's necessary now.

In the past 60 days, Goodell, I’m told, has met with more than 30 players, asking them how to make the locker room a more tolerant, more professional place. Players like Avant have told Goodell what he needs to hear.

I think it's a little silly that the players are going to Goodell asking him to make the locker room a more tolerant, professional place. He's not in the locker room on a day-to-day basis, so the players and coaches have the most influence on how tolerant and professional that locker room is. At some point there has to be a realization these NFL players are grown ups and they need to learn to act that way without Roger Goodell looking over their shoulder. And I would bet some of these 30 players who want Goodell to step in and fix NFL locker rooms also think that Goodell oversteps his authority by disciplining players for getting arrested or may think he is exerting too much authority to try to make the game of football safer. It's funny how the players want Goodell to get out of their locker rooms and stop trying to dictate standards to them until they need him to do so.

In the end, Richie Incognito and his perverse and persistent bullying and sister-raping jokes and goonishness gone mad will do a favor for the league. All the gone-too-far frat boys in locker rooms around the league can thank Incognito now, because when the NFL adopts a locker-room and meeting-room behavior policy, it’s going to be for adults. Will veterans be able to make rookies sing their college fight songs? Yes. Will vets be able to run kangaroo courts and fine peers $100 for especially stinky farts? Yes. Beyond that, vets won’t be allowed to shame young players the way it happened in Miami.

While I understand there may be a need for a code of conduct, though I really wish the NFL players could police themselves like adults, I philosophically have a problem with the NFL telling an individual NFL team what can and can not happen in their locker rooms. I just feel like these players should be adults and this code of conduct should be more understood than written down. I guess a written code of Hammurabi is necessary in order for NFL players to feel like it is wrong to make sexually explicit comments about a teammate's sister or mother. I'll remember this code of conduct is necessary the next time an NFL player claims he can determine for himself whether he should risk his mobility and health as he ages when complaining about safety measures Goodell has enacted to reduce concussions.

I say good. And good riddance to the bad-cop stuff—or whatever disgusting crap—Incognito and John Jerry and Mike Pouncey were advocating in the past couple of years.

It won't just magically go away. It will still occur.

And while they’re at it, the NFL is going to put in a seminar for players and coaches and staff on sexual-orientation training. Call it the Michael Sam Seminar. It’s coming, and it should. Homosexuality is not going away, and there’s no reason why any gay player in any NFL locker room should be subject to one-tenth of what Jonathan Martin had to endure over the past two years.

As weird as this may sound, I think Michael Sam would be subjected to less harassment than Jonathan Martin was subjected to. Players in the locker room know homosexuality is a touchy, hot-button subject so it's easier to make fun of a straight guy and his family than it is to make fun of a homosexual guy for his orientation. One can be played off as just good fun, while the other can't be played off for much more than bigotry. That's just my experience. I think any harassing Michael Sam will endure is going to be completely behind his back and not in the way Jonathan Martin endured harassment.

Get ready for several weeks (months?) of internal and external debate around the NFL over how to professionalize the players’ workplace.

Don't be a dick, family members are generally off limits, it's fine to tease someone and if you don't know the point at which teasing becomes something more perhaps you shouldn't tease a teammate, and don't be a dick. I think that covers it all. Obviously it's easier said than done.

the scathing Ted Wells report told the world what a soulless place an NFL locker room can be. “Can” being the operative word, because I do not believe there are many, if any, other locker rooms or portions of locker rooms that go so over the top as the Incognito-led Miami offensive-line group went.

Which means while I was a little offended by the behavior in that locker room, this is an outlying case it seems. I don't know if this outlying case should provide the impetus for Roger Goodell to provide a code of conduct for each NFL team's locker room. I'm a little surprised these players can't police themselves.

Roger Goodell has to suspend Incognito, and give more than a slap on the wrist to partners-in-intimidation John Jerry and Mike Pouncey.

I think this is the commissioner's job. I'm not sure telling each locker room how to behave as if it were a kindergarten class. Besides, what is and is not permissible to say and do seems easy in theory but I can't help but wonder how it will work in practice.

Miami will have to fire offensive line coach Jim Turner, who the report says was complicit in the atmosphere of bullying. How can owner Steve Ross say he’s serious about a respectful work environment and keep employing a coach who went along with Incognito’s incessant bullying of two of his linemen, going so far as to give a male blow-up doll to one player whom the others chided as being gay?

Here's a great example of how it seems easy in theory, but I wonder how the code of conduct will work in practice. Is a male blowup doll to a straight player in and of itself offensive or bullying? Ignoring all the factors around it, if the Dolphins team got Player X a male blowup doll is that offensive and does that break the code of conduct? What if the doll is given to a straight player and the doll is female? Is this harassment or bullying in and of itself? I would argue I'm not sure it is. Now the background of the Dolphins team calling this Player X gay is what makes the blowup doll harassment and offensive. Can the Dolphins team give a gay player a male blowup doll if they have never teased this gay player for being gay? Is that in and of itself offensive and harassment? How about giving a gay player a female blowup doll? Again, ignoring all of the other factors would this present violate the code of conduct as harassment? I'm not sure it would. Depending on the situation, it can be in good fun. I'm afraid this code of conduct is going to be more subjective depending on each situation.

Martin should have talked to Joe Philbin. Martinmight be a fish out of water in the NFL and certainly deserves empathy for having to deal with 18 months of mental beatdowns from veterans like Incognito. But he should have told his head coach what was going on.

Then Peter's very next point negated this one and shows why his criticism of Martin for not going to Philbin doesn't really matter.

For Philbin not to know anything definitive about the crisis with Martin, he had to be either tone deaf or not paying enough attention to his team. Head coaches have their locker-room sources.

And that is exactly why I don't buy Peter's criticism of Martin for not telling Philbin what was going on. Philbin should have known, and if he states he didn't know then he either, (a) is lying or (b) is negligent for not knowing what is going on with his team.

I do understand he asked Turner about what was going on with his players, and Turner told him everything was fine. But what caused Philbin to ask Turner? Obviously his antennae were up. Philbin, whom I find to be a good man, still should know better, and this had better be a very good lesson for him, or his time in the head coach’s chair is going to be short.

I obviously have zero inside information, but I think Joe Philbin knew what was going on and intentionally ignored it or didn't think it had escalated to the point where Martin had contemplated suicide. So yes, at this point I can see where Martin should have gone to Philbin, but perhaps Philbin should have gone to Martin first. 

For the NFL, Sam and this report are two firecrackers designed to wake up anyone who can’t see that the league needs to have its collective head examined. It’s time, and Goodell can’t let this moment get away.

This isn't just an NFL problem though. Bullying and sensitivity problems in the locker room or clubhouse can be found throughout sports. 

A year ago, the American sports media trooped to Indianapolis for the annual NFL Scouting Combine, and the story was the distraction that Notre Dame linebacker Manti Te’o would be for the team that drafted him, in the wake of the girlfriend hoax. 

In the end, the Chargers drafted Te’o with the sixth pick of the second round. Think back now: What do you remember about his rookie year, on or off the field? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. He was unimpactful on the field, particularly against the run, playing 56 percent of the defensive snaps. He kept his mouth shut off the field. He’s a vanilla interview anyway, and eventually the questions about the phony girlfriend went away.

I don't think this is a very good comparison. Te'o's lifestyle wasn't the issue in regard to what questions he would be asked. Michael Sam is going to be the first openly gay athlete to play in the NFL, which is a totally different issue than what Te'o faced and introduces a whole new set of questions that can be asked of him and the team that drafts him. I think it's typical Peter King to say the NFL needs to change the entire way it polices NFL locker rooms and introduce a code of conduct for NFL locker rooms, partially because of Michael Sam, but also believe Sam will not be a distraction or a subject of great discussion at the Combine or prior to the draft. Apparently Peter seems to think the presence of Michael Sam in an NFL locker room is the type of great sociological change to the NFL that no reporter or team official will care to ask about or discuss in any depth. To urge the NFL to introduce a code of conduct, partially because of Michael Sam, but to claim his presence could not initially be a distraction seems like conflicting points of view to me.

IT'S A CULTURAL REVOLUTION IN THE NFL! Except, it's not really.

Now, Sam is likely to be just as big of a story at the combine. And, unlike Te’o, Sam probably will be more of a lingering story, wherever he is drafted. But I think Sam will be a mega-story only for several days, when you might see Anderson Cooper with a CNN crew on the sidelines early in training camp.

And now Peter starts backing down from his comment that Sam won't be a distraction. Well yeah, he will be a distraction for a little bit at the Combine (I capitalize it for some reason), immediately after the draft, and probably during training camp...but that's about it and the story will eventually die. Well yes, this is absolutely true. The issue is that the Michael Sam story will be a bit of a distraction for a period of time. I'm not sure anyone is suggesting that no one will talk about anything but Michael Sam for the entire training camp or Combine, but it's going to be a big story and whichever team drafts him will have to be prepared for Anderson Cooper to possibly be on the sidelines during training camp for a few days. Since Peter has such great NFL connections, he would know NFL coaches consider something like this to be a distraction.

If Sam can play, his teammates will accept him—maybe with a hiccup or two from a very religious teammate who disapproves of homosexuality or an unenlightened teammate who thinks it’s cool to make gay jokes. And it could be that some of those on the team will simply steer clear of Sam. No one knows. But there won’t be much of a problem, I don’t think, if Sam is contributing as a player.

I don't think there will be a problem either. I think any real problems will come from outside the locker room to make their way into the locker room, when one of Sam's teammates says something construed to be insensitive and then it has to be taken care of in the locker room. This is known as a "distraction" and no matter how much Peter denies it, I can see Sam temporarily being one with the media covering his every move. The issues won't come from the locker room, but from outside the locker room to make their way inwards. Think of all the Tebow over-coverage and how that seemed to eventually make it's way into the Jets locker room where the team was just tired of hearing about him.

Speaking of Tim Tebow, I would love to get his comments about being on the same team as Michael Sam. I'm sure he would be very polite, but I think I know how he would truly feel.

The 3-2 victory by the United States hockey team over Russia on Saturday really wasn’t a significant event, if you consider that it meant nothing in the medal standings. But you couldn’t watch the game and listen to the explosions by the fans (particularly the Russians, who outnumbered the Americans so clearly) and not feel there was something riding on this.

It actually was a significant game because if the United States won their draw then they would have an extra day of rest before they had to play again.

But that’s what great about hockey: Even in a game that’s being played for future seeding only, the players care so much.

This is true for most Olympic sports and not just hockey.

Sunday, when I got to ask Oshie about it, he was still stunned about it all. “The president tweeted about you,” I said. “America went pretty nuts. The New York Post and the New York Daily News both had you on the back pages this morning, with screaming headlines. Yesterday morning, no one knew you. Now, this.”

Great question, Peter! Wait, that wasn't a question at all. Glad you could contribute to the discussion, Peter by not really asking a question when given the opportunity other than to say, "So how cool is all of this!" and then stare intently into the phone waiting for Oshie's reply.

Then Peter gives the play-by-play on what happened during the shootout because killing space is important.

I asked Oshie if he’d been the kind of kid who grew up—in Washington state and Minnesota—shooting the puck into a net, imagining it was for the Stanley Cup or Olympic gold.

Sweet Jesus, Peter certainly sucks at asking questions. No Peter, T.J. Oshie has wanted to play hockey professionally for his entire life but he never envisioned himself trying to score a goal in the Stanley Cup or for Olympic Gold. He's the only kid who ever grew up not imagining this.

Not to be snide, but what does Peter think the answer to this question is? Of course Oshie imagined shooting a puck at the net for the Stanley Cup or Olympic Gold.

“Yeah, I was that type of kid,” he said. “I did it a lot, playing in the backyard, playing wherever, 9 or 10 o’clock at night, just before you leave the ice, you’re alone, and you think, ‘This one’s for the Stanley Cup,’ or ‘This one’s for the gold medal.’

Great, hard-hitting question Peter that got an answer where I learned nothing new from what I had already assumed to be true.

Oshie skated in deliberately, as always. “If you skate in fast, you’ve only got a chance to make one or two moves—that’s it,” he said. He swept in toward the right, the back left, then right in on goal, and he saw a little hole between the legs, and he aimed for it, and bang … right in.

Yeah, I needed Oshie to skate faster. He was going to slow for me. It worked obviously, but I think I lean more towards the "skate fast towards the goal" crowd.

And then the quote America loved, about how he felt about being an American hero, in a group interview with some American writers and TV people. Oshie said to them, “The real American heroes are wearing camo. That’s not me.”

Clearly Oshie is talking about the guys from "Duck Dynasty."

“Thanks,” I said when we were about to get off the phone. “Hope you bring home the gold.”

“Thank you sir,” said the 27-year-old hockey player, not hero, from Warroad, Minn. “We will sure try.”

Ignoring that Peter just threw a good portion of hockey discussion into his weekly NFL column, what was the point of transcribing this interview with Oshie other than to kill space in MMQB? There are better places to transcribe this interview with a hockey player than on a site dedicated specifically to the NFL.

“I was a kid who made some goofball decisions. That’s been part of my journey. Maybe it’s part of the whole Johnny Football deal that I’m trying to get away from. I’m trying to show people I’ve grown up, and I’ve learned from my experiences. I feel like you’re a stupid person if you continue to make the same wrong decisions. I don’t want to hear, ‘Oh, anybody in his situation would have been doing the same thing.’ I’m 100 percent responsible for my actions.”

—Johnny Manziel, the Texas A&M quarterback who wants to be the first pick in the draft to the Houston Texans, in an interview he clearly hopes will be image-altering with John McClain of the Houston Chronicle.

Oh, it seems like someone has found themselves a PR firm to do good work for him. I'm sure the notes given to Manziel from the PR firm were very similar to this:

1. Own your actions.

2. Explain how you have changed.

3. Refer to it as a "journey" so your actions in college seem like a minor road on the overall path you take to being who you are.

4. Explain how you've learned from this part of your journey.

“Bob McNair and Bill O’Brien. Those are the two guys I really want to meet.”

—Manziel, to Charean Williams of the Fort Worth Star Telegram. McNair owns the Texans. O’Brien coaches them. This was in response to a question about whom the famous Manziel really wants to meet.

Great answer. Of course it's probably a lie and Manziel probably really wants to meet Kate Upton...assuming he hasn't already.

“In light of the Incognito/Martin story, people would have you believe that you have to be some raving lunatic to play in the NFL, wound so tightly that the slightest spark will insight an insatiable inferno. Nothing could be farther from the truth. I’m 48 years old now and about the least confrontational person you’ll ever meet. My fists have never found purchase on the flesh of another man’s face. I’ve never been in a fight. Yet I succeeded for many years in the trenches of the NFL, in which there are several confrontations on every play. It can be done—

—Former NFL guard Mark Schlereth, in an excellent column written for ESPN.com about how, from his experience, he feels what happened in Miami is more of an outlier than common. 

This brings me back to my point that I think an overall code of conduct for NFL locker rooms may seem to be a bit of overkill. Not that I don't think NFL locker rooms probably don't need changing in some aspects, but the Incognito/Martin issues seem to be the outlier and having the commissioner dictate what can and can't be said or done in NFL locker rooms seems a bit much. Of course, Peter also thinks Michael Sam won't be a huge distraction, yet he supports this idea of a code of conduct being passed down, which I'm still having trouble rapping my head around.

I am still trying to figure out why NFL Network and NFL.com are based in Culver City, Calif., and not in either Mount Laurel, N.J. (home of NFL Films) or Manhattan (home of the league office).

I don’t buy the it’s-good-for-business-to-have-a-West Coast-presence thing. You mean it’s good for business to be 3,000 miles away from the capital of the capitalism world, New York?

Maybe, and this is just a guess, NFL Network and NFL.com don't want to be based in New York? Maybe that's a good reason to not move to New York. Of course Peter King has a massive East Coast bias and can't figure out why everyone doesn't want to move to the upper Northeast because that's obviously where anything important in anyone's life comes from.

Let’s say the whole operation was moved to One Sabol Way in Mount Laurel (yes, that’s the address of the huge office park that contains NFL Films). On a Monday after a big weekend, Eagles quarterback Nick Foles or Giants receiver Victor Cruz could be in studio to dissect big wins on the set, and they could cycle through NFL.com to be grilled by one or two of the writers on site. Let’s say the Ravens are the hottest team in football, with the best defense. On Tuesday, the entire Haloti Ngata-led defensive front comes in to do the car wash on TV and the website.

What if they want to have the Seattle Seahawks on the show or the 49ers have just won a big game and want to come do the car wash on TV and the website. There are NFL teams not in the upper Northeast, Peter. Sometimes they matter and win Super Bowls too. Shocking, I know.

Take a look.

Culver City to:
 
San Diego 129 miles
Santa Clara, Calif. (S.F.) 345 miles
Oakland 371 miles
Tempe, Ariz. (Cardinals) 393 miles
Denver 1,028 miles
Seattle 1,137 miles

Mount Laurel to:

Philadelphia 17 miles 
New York City 83 miles
East Rutherford, N.J. (Giants) 83 miles
Florham Park, N.J. (Jets) 88 miles
Baltimore 119 miles
Asburn, Va. (Wash.) 179 miles
Foxboro, Mass. (N.E.) 282 miles
Pittsburgh 321 miles

So: seven teams and the league office are within 330 miles of Mount Laurel. One team is within 330 miles of Culver City.
I just don’t get it. Never have.

Maybe NFL Network and NFL.com don't care if they are close to NFL teams. I recognize that Peter hasn't ever thought about that because his East Coast bias warps his thinking, but maybe they don't give a shit if they are close to NFL teams. It's 2014 and there are other ways to interview or talk to an athlete when that athlete isn't in the same room as the interviewer. I know it shocks Peter to think that not everyone and every company wants to be based out of New York or based on the East Coast, but it does happen.

Mr. Starwood Preferred Member Travel Note of the Week

Worst part about going someplace warm for three days and flying back into New York in February: When you return, you fly low over inlets and small fingers of water that are either frozen or ice-capped, and you get off the plane and walk back into the freezer and think there is no way spring is coming. Ever.

Hey, maybe this is a reason NFL Network and NFL.com don't want to be based in New York. Also, Peter chooses to live in New York so his bitching about the weather falls on my deaf ears. If only we lived in a world where Peter King could live anywhere in the United States of his choosing and wasn't forced by no one in particular to live where he does. What would Peter bitch about, besides free coffee, the service industry, and anyone else he comes into contact with during the week?

“Dempster is a real character. Wore a t-shirt around the clubhouse with a picture of Shakespeare. ‘This **** writes itself’ it said.”

—@peteabe, Boston Globe Red Sox beat man Pete Abraham, on pitcher Ryan Dempster, who announced Sunday he was walking away from a contract that would pay him $13 million in 2014 for physical and family reasons.

Let's say I'm a distant relative of William Shakespeare and my family runs a Shakespeare museum here in the United States. I'm also a teammate of Ryan Dempster, so does this count as bullying or harassment under the NFL's new code of conduct for the locker room? I ask because my family takes great pride in our relation to Shakespeare and Dempster has mocked me repeatedly in the past for loving reading Shakespeare's writing. He's called me a nerd and made derogatory comments about my love for reading. I know when he wears this shirt he is trolling me, which makes me upset. Would this shirt pass the code of conduct?

Ten Things I Think I Think

2. I think I really hope one team—the Saints or Ravens—challenges the idiotic tight end franchise-tag designation, a $4.8 million difference between the tight end and wide receiver positions. My feeling on this is simple: If Jimmy Graham and Dennis Pitta are drafted as tight ends and used as tight ends and voted to the Pro Bowl as tight ends, then their team’s salary caps should not be punished by having them shown as wide receivers.

There's nothing idiotic about it. It's in the CBA. As it reads: 

The CBA requires a franchise player be tendered at the position

“at which [he] participated in the most plays during the prior League Year.”

If Jimmy Graham is lined up as a wide receiver for the majority of the plays during the League Year then he may have a good argument as to why he should be franchised as a wide receiver and not a tight end. It's right there in the CBA and it's not idiotic, no matter how much Peter wants to protect his friends who are NFL coaches and GM's. The Titans chose not to fight this fight with Jared Cook and the Packers settled with Jermichael Finley rather than keep fighting with him about this issue.

Being placed in the slot or split wide on multiple occasions per game should not change their designation.

Maybe this "should not" change their designation, but according to the CBA the owners and players agreed upon there is a case that Graham being split wide or in the slot could theoretically change his designation as a tight end. Thems the rules. I can't figure out why Peter is so vexed by this. Just because a guy is drafted as a tight end doesn't mean that if he is used mostly as a receiver then he shouldn't get the receiver designation. The CBA specifically lays this situation out.

4. I think many of you have rightfully asked me, and others who work in NFL locker rooms, how surprised we are about what was in the Wells report...Now, I know lots of untoward stuff goes on, because it always has, and there’s an Animal House element to every locker room. But I just don’t believe what happened in Miami is common to every NFL locker room.

Again, this causes me to ask the question...if what happened in Miami isn't common to every NFL locker room, then why is it so necessary to put together a code of conduct for NFL locker rooms or enforce rules that teams must follow as to what is and is not proper conduct? If NFL teams do a generally good job of policing themselves, why overreact to an outlying incident? NFL locker rooms probably need a change in attitude and mindset, but no rules can make a player change his mind on what he thinks about a homosexual person. If that player's locker room is policed it won't be an issue though, because that issue gets squashed before it becomes a bigger issue. That's the hope at least.

8. I think, with franchise tags able to be used beginning today, I would be stunned if defensive end Greg Hardy isn’t tagged by the Panthers—who have the moderate sum of about $8 million in cap space and will have to shed some contract in order to tag him. But Hardy, 25, is the kind of player teams develop and keep, not develop and let walk.

Unless that team has $8 million in salary cap room and has a secondary and offensive line they desperately need to improve, along with 26 free agents they may or may not want to sign.

9. I think the University of Missouri must be a great place these days. A great journalism school, obviously, from the alums who work all over our business … but I’m not talking about that. I’m talking about the loyalty to Michael Sam. An AP dispatch out of Columbia over the weekend quoted the student body president, Mason Schara, thusly: “The majority of us knew [Sam was gay] and we just didn’t think anything of it because that’s just who we are here.” And a large group of students, hearing there would be a protest Sunday on campus opposing Sam’s declaration, linked arms in solidarity as a protest to the protest.

I hope this gets remembered the next time Peter or one of his sportswriting friends writes about "Middle America" and the supposedly conservative and overly-religious nature of the middle part of the United States. There seems to be a "Wow, Michael Sam was accepted in Middle America" vibe going on at times, as if citizens west of the Mississippi and east of Colorado all think being attracted to a person of the same gender is the same thing as being attracted to one of the farm animals that every family in Middle America has.

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

a. A fond farewell tour is my hope for Derek Jeter. And that, to him, would mean a 162-game regular season and playing well enough to lead the Yankees deep into the playoffs. As I’ve written, I believe he’s the best all-around baseball player and leader I’ve seen play a complete career.

Or as Peter originally wrote this statement a few years ago, Jeter is "the best player of his generation" or some variation of this statement that was just absolutely absurd. Peter later clarified that he meant Jeter was the best player whose career he (Peter) has seen completely, which was a backpedal so hard that it left skidmarks.

it’s amazing to me how he not only played at such a high level, but led at the highest level as well—and never the hint of a scandal, playing on the team with the highest profile in American professional sports.

So Derek Jeter is the best all-around baseball player and leader Peter has ever seen because he doesn't give a good juicy quote? Sounds logical.

d. Hey Pierre McGuire: Great call on the heretofore unknown T.J. Oshie being one of the U.S. shooters in the shootout as everyone debated who would get the call for the Americans.

It's almost like he gets paid to cover the NHL or something.

i. Coffeenerdness: I’ve crossed over to the darker side now. Four shots of espresso in a medium drink at Starbucks now. Someone has to stop me before it’s too late.

It's been too late for many years now. We are just a few months away from Peter accusing a Starbucks barista of only putting in three shots of espresso (because Peter watched him only put three in there) and then the barista deny it when Peter confronts the barista about this. Peter will obviously share this story in MMQB.

k. I saw The Monuments Men, and though it had its share of clichéd dialog and scenes, I liked the story a lot. Cate Blanchett’s really good in it.

If Cate Blanchett died of a drug overdose then Peter could tell us all that he finds her to be the best actress of her generation. She has to be dead before she gets this distinction though.

The Adieu Haiku

The combine’s this week.
Hearty welcome, Michael Sam.
Welcome to mayhem.

But not too much mayhem of course, because Manti Te'o wasn't a distraction so Michael Sam certainly won't be either. At least until he is a short-term distraction, but this doesn't count because it doesn't count and being the first active NFL player to be gay is the same thing as pretending you have a girlfriend who died and then lying about it for three months. The social issues and media interest from outside football are the same in each case obviously.

7 comments Bill Simmons, His "Real" Readers, and Another Mailbag

Against my better judgment I have read and will cover Bill Simmons' Super Bowl mailbag. Yep, Bill did a mailbag for the AFC/NFC Championship Games, didn't write anything for a week, and then did a Super Bowl mailbag. Sure, that's not lazy at all. But have no fears, because this is the mailbag that really counts as Bill tells it.

Even if I’ve written something like 150 normal mailbags over the course of my career, ultimately, only the Super Bags matter.

As suspected, the other mailbags are just time wasters mainly used by Bill to bide time until he finds inspiration to write another column and to be used as a source of ideas for Bill to write a column. Also, he doesn't really "write" the mailbag. His lemming-like readers send in questions, he answers them. I'm not sure I consider that "writing" a mailbag more than a mailbag is simply answering questions posed to him.

We’re about to find out. In honor of Super Bowl XLVIII, we’re tackling 48 mailbag questions.

Not shockingly, this turns out to be a lie. Bill tackles more than 48 questions.

As always, these are actual emails from actual readers.

As always, I will be mocking Bill as well as his brain-dead readers who loyally follow him and idolize absolutely everything he does.

Q: My buddy and I came up with a great idea for a stoner flick called “Archie Manning’s Vasectomy.”

I'm going to stop you right there. This isn't a good idea and the fact Bill Simmons likes it doesn't make it a good idea. In fact, based on the fact you are emailing ideas to Bill Simmons so you can get his approval I think it's best if you get a vasectomy.

SG: I think you just created something that could potentially leapfrog The Verdict, The Town and The Departed as the most popular Boston movie ever. My biggest note: Definitely name the lead characters “Murph and Sully.” And I’d seriously consider throwing them into the title — something like Murph and Sully Stop the Mannings, just to avoid the inevitable lawsuit when Archie hires an army of lawyers to stop production of Archie Manning’s Vasectomy.

These two characters go back and convince Archie Manning he will get a Super Bowl ring if he gets a vasectomy. The idea is so ridiculous I can see it getting made, except no one outside of the Boston area would care to see it.

Q: Is Aqib Talib hobbling off the field your least favorite AFC Championship Game tradition?
—Kyle, Philly

SG: It’s right up there with the annual Sunday-night post-Pats elimination conversation with my dad —

This email from Kyle has prompted some Bill Simmons whining about the Patriots not winning the Super Bowl every year. WE'RE SO CURSED! MY TEAM ONLY MAKES THE AFC CHAMPIONSHIP GAME EVERY OTHER YEAR, BUT CAN'T WIN THE SUPER BOWL! PITY ME!

you know, the one in which we try to figure out why Belichick won’t get Brady more weapons, why the Pats can’t score more than 17 points in any playoff exit game even though they always average 30-plus during the season,

Because the Patriots play better defenses in the postseason. This is an easy answer and is probably something Bill should already know.

Q: If anyone can bring back the nickname for Richard as “Dick,” it is Richard Sherman. In fact, for Super Bowl week, why isn’t he insisting that everyone refer to him as “Dick Sherman?”
—Chris G, Burbank

Because he wants to go by "Richard" Sherman. Why aren't you insisting that everyone call you "Chrissie G"?

SG: That’s baloney — after Dick LeBeau and Mighty Mighty Bosstones singer Dicky Barrett did a phenomenal job of carrying the “Dick” banner in the 1990s,

Nobody cares about your Boston-area one-hit wonder Mighty Mighty Bosstones, Bill. Yes, I do get that you know Jimmy Kimmel and Dicky Barrett is the announcer for Jimmy Kimmel. The impression I get is that the Mighty Mighty Bosstones haven't been very relevant after their one big hit. Also, "Dicky" isn't the same thing as "Dick."

Q: Every time Richard Sherman gets an interception my friends and I call it a “Dick Pick”. It could be the greatest inappropriate way to describe an interception of all-time.

It's also one of the least funny ways to describe an interception of all-time. But hey, you got your email printed in Bill's latest mailbag so you can print that out, blow it up and put it on your wall to show everyone just how cool you are.

Why can’t the media say this? This should be a thing. Life is unfair sometimes.
—Pete, Seattle

Life is fair sometimes. For example, why won't Bill Simmons print all of your emails? You and your friends are so funny.

SG: Imagine if Peyton Manning lost Super Bowls in 2010 and 2014 thanks to a TAINT (That’s the acronym for TD after INT)

Thanks for clearing that up, because your readers are all idiotic dipshits who require you to explain everything sports-related and need you to be the representative voice of the common fan.

and a Dick Pick, respectively.

Yeah, imagine that. Imagine this also, Bill. What if you wrote a column about sports and stopped pretending you are a 20-something fresh out of college and finally admitted to yourself that you are over 40 years old and probably should stop trying to crave the acceptance of your readers.

(I've explained before my theory of the symbiotic relationship between Bill and his readers. He's popular and his readers want to be popular so they crave his acceptance to justify their existence in the world, mostly because they idolize him. Bill wants to feel young and relevant so he craves the acceptance of his readers that he is still young and cool. What follows is a perverse version of Bill Simmons sounding like that dad who still listen to today's music and wants to come off as being hip to today's youth, while Bill's readers play the part of this dad's kids who think their dad is so awesome because he knows what twerking is and makes jokes about penises.)

My question: Let’s say I presented that scenario to you right before the game, then said, “Let’s bet … if a charged-up Richard Sherman doesn’t say anything that outrages America in this interview, I will give you $500. But if he DOES say something that outrages America, you have to give me $200.” Would you have taken that bet? No way. You would have tried to negotiate a 1,200/200 ratio.

Oh yes, it is one of Bill's hypothetical scenarios where he puts himself in other person's shoes and then reads the mind of this person to ultimately get an outcome that (what a shock!) proves the point Bill wants to prove. He does this all the time. See Bill is right, because "you" would have tried to negotiate a 1,200/200 ratio. Bill knows "you" would have done this so he's right. Bill loves these hypothetical scenarios where he tells "us" how we would behave, and then lo and behold, the outcome proves the point Bill wants to prove.

Q: Apparently some of the survival traits you learn by growing up in Compton and scrapping to survive are only acceptable for rappers. You worship Pac, Simmons, and I do too, but was Pac a better human than Sherman? Pac bangs a guy’s wife and calls him out on the national stage and it’s this epic “throwing down the gauntlet” moment,
—John Wolff, Missouri

Actually John, not that you should know your Tupac history or anything...but it's still up in the air on whether Tupac slept with Faith Evans or not. It's highly possible that Tupac lied about it in order to incite Biggie but it's also possible that Tupac did sleep with Faith Evans. Also, Tupac never called out Biggie "on the national stage" with Hit 'Em Up. The song was originally a B-side to "How Do You Want It" and only was released as a single in the summer of 1996, when it did get frequent radio play. I don't know if that's calling Biggie out on the national stage or not because the song was severely edited when on radio, though the video was pretty funny.

SG: God, you were so close to grabbing the lead in the Best Mailbag Email of 2014 race, John Wolff! If only your last sentence had been, “Well this is how we gonna do this. F—- Crabtree, f—- Harbaugh, f—- the Niners as a team, a franchise and a motherf—ing crew, and if you wanna be down with the Niners, f—- you too!”

I see what you did there, Bill. You quoted "Hit 'Em Up" except referred to the 49ers. You are super-hip.

Q: On December 22, 2013, a special teams defender came streaking in from the right side of the formation, lept, extended his arms, and delivered a glancing blow on the pigskin, stopping it from reaching the goal posts. It was the NFL’s last blocked extra point. The blocker? Bernard KARMELL Pollard! That’s right, there’s a chance that Bernard KARMELL Pollard murdered the Point After Touchdown.
—Ryan U, Somerville, Massachusetts

SG: Add that to the list. Pollard also concussed Wes Welker in December, then Welker came back for the playoffs and knocked Aqib Talib out of the AFC title game — it was like Pollard transferred his evil powers to Welker like they were starring in a Wes Craven movie.

Yeah, Bill you are sort of reaching now to keep this Bernard Karmell Pollard thing going. Sadly, your readers still seem to think this bit is fresh and hilarious.

Roger Goodell brought up an intriguing wrinkle: Maybe the NFL makes every touchdown worth seven points, but if you go for two and get it, you climb to eight points (and if you miss it, you drop to six points).

In that case, most teams will choose to not go for two. That's just me speculating, but NFL coaches are conservative enough as it is. I doubt the same NFL coaches who won't go for it on fourth-and-short at the 50-yard line would run the risk of losing a point in order to try a two-point conversion. So basically a touchdown would be worth seven points and the sum effect of getting rid of the extra point would only be that the extra point got eliminated with no corresponding improvement to the excitement of the game.

Q: When listing nicknames for SB48, aka the first Stoner State Bowl (hey, there’s another!), how could you miss “The Cotton Mouth Bowl”? —Ray Charbonneau, Arlington, Massachusetts

SG: I still love the Doobie Bowl … but man, the Cotton Mouth Bowl is pretty inspired. 

It sounds like a bowl that references a snake, not a bowl referencing smoking pot.

By the way, you guys can stop sending me every conceivable variation of the “After seeing this Super Bowl matchup, when are Ohio, Michigan and Minnesota legalizing marijuana?” joke. We’re at capacity.

Yeah, Bill's readers, don't beat a joke into the ground. That's Bill's job.

Q: During the most recent Cousin Sal podcast (Jan. 21), the AOL “goodbye” sound byte can be heard at 12:34. I’m sure of it since I decided to rewind it 50 times for confirmation. 

Who are these people who write into Bill? Who rewinds the podcast even three times to hear the AOL "goodbye," much less do it (I don't believe he did it this often) 50 times?

Q: I believe the closest qb to ever become the greatest quarterback of all time (including playoffs) was Tom Brady in 2007, when he set the touchdown record (50), was undefeated until the Super Bowl (18-0), and one win away from achieving four Super Bowls in eight years and breaking the ’72 Dolphins’ record. He also would have had the greatest win percentage ever. Unfortunately, the “helmet catch” happened and you know the rest. That’s how close Brady was to being the greatest quarterback of all time. But I do believe Peyton Manning 2014 will win the Super Bowl, to go along with the td record, and passing yds record, making him the greatest single season quarterback of all time.
—Dr. Funk, Halifax

I guess these people are the same ones who go by the name "Dr. Funk" when writing emails to Bill.

SG: This was the last step in a Halifax conversation that clearly started with the question, “How can we get Simmons to open the window of his New York hotel and jump out of it?”

This is Bill's not-covert way to mention he was in New York for the Super Bowl. It's much easier and wouldn't ruin the joke at all to write," How can we get Simmons to open the window of a hotel (or his hotel) and jump out of it," but Bill HAD to add the words "New York" in there so his readers would know exactly where he was located at that point in time during Super Bowl week. He was at the Super Bowl. If there is a such thing as a humblebrag this is a non-covert brag.

Q: I was thinking of titles for the inevitable 30 for 30 in a couple years on the Seahawks after the whole organization gets suspended for a season due to PEDs. This was the best I could come up with: “The Space Needles”. Thoughts?
—Steve, Nashville

Steve from Nashville, you know Bill Simmons can't allow you to be the most clever guy in the room. He has to top your suggestion to feed his own ego.

SG: I like The Space Needles slightly more than I like Guiltless in Seattle or The Greenie River, but not as much as I like The Real 12th Man.

See? Bill has to be more clever than you are Steve. You lose, yet you already lost by writing into Bill with this idea in the first place.

In real life, most people don't like that person who always tries to top another person's idea or tries to show why his ideas are better than your idea. Yet for some reason, it seems the Simmonsites love it when Bill tops their idea and they don't see Bill as having a massive ego who only uses his readers and their ideas as a way of confirming his own relevance and superior ability to be clever.

Q: What would the best Super Bowl week trash talking comment be? Can you top Manning saying “I’m gonna complete so many passes on Richard Sherman, that he’ll be the most depressed Seattle resident since Kurt Cobain”?
—Tony Greco, New Orleans

Then we have jokes like this which Bill should be able to easily top.

SG: There’s only one way to hurt people from Seattle. Even the email we just ran didn’t hurt them.

Cue the whining about losing the Seattle Supersonics, where Bill acts like Seattle is the first and only franchise to have ever lost a professional sports team. Bill has been beating the "Seattle lost the Sonics" drum for so long now it's lost any relevance. The Sonics got screwed by the NBA and lost a professional franchise. This isn't the first time a team has left a city and won't be the last. Charlotte lost their professional NBA franchise and then were rewarded with a franchise so shitty the city ended up stealing back their original franchise's name in a desperate attempt to get the fans to re-connect with the new NBA franchise.

But if a Bronco like Manning said anything along the lines of, “On Sunday, I’m gonna steal this Super Bowl from Seattle like Clay Bennett stole the Sonics!,” or, “There are two certainties in life: The Seahawks aren’t winning the Super Bowl this Sunday, and Seattle is never getting another NBA team,” or even something more subtle like, “I look forward to winning the Super Bowl, then celebrating with Clay Bennett, Howard Schultz and Aubrey McClendon,” that might start our first American civil war in 150 years.

Except it won't really be a Civil War because no one in Denver will care and the city of Seattle will be too busy celebrating their Super Bowl win.

Q: So I guess that now football is over you’ll go back to shooting the shit about crappy NBA games on TV and writing a column once every three months. Consider this a preemptive strike: You suck, Simmons! Write a column already!
—Charles, Inglewood

SG: My readers keep finding new and improved ways to complain about my columns.

Your lemming readers aren't complaining about your columns, but the lack of columns and over preponderance of mailbags. Mailbags aren't columns. They are circle-jerks with your readers that only serve to prop up your ego.

Then Bill posts a YouTube video, which is another one of his crutches to make his columns (when he writes one) seem longer than they really are.

Q: I used to believe in you. In 2010, you predicted that Justin Bieber would be the one child star “who wouldn’t go off the deep end,” explaining, “He’s Canadian. Canadians don’t go off the deep end. Lock it down.” How can I trust anything you say anymore?
—Jebediah, Fullerton, California

SG: Wait, it took my horrible Bieber prediction for you to stop trusting my opinions??? That was the catalyst? It wasn’t me being 34 games under .500 picking NFL games this season? By the way, that Bieber prediction was flawed coming out of the gate, given the late Corey Haim was Canadian (and I totally forgot this).

"Totally forgot this" being better restated as "I didn't know this, but I'm going to totally pretend I did know this."

Q: I like Richard Sherman. He took it a bit too far with Crabtree and I may not like him as a person, but he makes the league more entertaining. Now we need a receiver who will talk with him. Today’s elite offensive players say the right things and go about their business. Give me the players, past or present, you’d most like to see lined up against Richard Sherman on game day.
—Curt, Boston

Remember this column where Bill fawned over Calvin Johnson and called him one of the most exciting wide receivers in NFL history (or some variation of that)? Surely, Bill would think the best wide receiver in the NFL today should be on this list. Surely, Bill would mention these two players matched up last season and how Sherman held Johnson to 3 catches for 46 yards on 8 targets. Right? Bill will mention this since he is the one who wrote an entire column about how great Calvin Johnson is? Wrong.

SG: 2000 Randy Moss in a landslide — not just for the nonstop woofing and shoving that would eventually cause a double ejection and a frustrated Troy Aikman to sob on live TV, but because the matchup itself (tall, athletic cornerback trying to stop tall, freak-athlete receiver) would have been consistently fascinating. Runner-up choices: 1991 Michael Irvin, 2005 Steve Smith and 2002 Marvin Harrison — wait, scratch Harrison, I don’t want Sherman to coincidentally get shot by a custom-made and extremely rare Belgian gun.

Ok then. What about Calvin Johnson who Bill described in this way:

But it's the in-the-moment stuff that makes him special. I'm 40 NFL seasons in at this point. During that time, only five non-quarterbacks made me feel like their games never had a ceiling: Jerry Rice, Barry Sanders, Lawrence Taylor, Adrian Peterson (2012 only) and Megatron.

Or how much of Stafford's success can be directly attributed to the part where, you know, HE GETS TO THROW FOOTBALLS TO A FREAK OF NATURE? What would Stafford's numbers look like if we removed the 20 catches every season that no other human could make?
In four decades of watching football, three receivers stand out for me over everyone else: Rice, Megatron and Moss. I'd take Rice for any important game, Moss for any deep ball, and Megatron for any "sitting at home on a lazy October afternoon expecting to see someone kick ass for three hours" situation. I will remember watching all three. Even if it's too early to wonder if Megatron can leapfrog those other two, he has launched the conversation.

Maybe Nike should dump that Diddy commercial, press the RESET button and make a new one called "Calvin Johnson, the Last of the Freak Receivers." Show him doing Megatron things for 58 seconds, then close with the tagline "YOU WILL NEVER SEE THIS AGAIN." 

Because it might be true.

That was written in late November. Now it's February and Bill doesn't even mention wanting to see Calvin Johnson lined up against Richard Sherman nor acknowledge this has already happened last season. Calvin Johnson has gone from one of three receivers who stand out to Bill over everyone else to not worthy of being in the same group as 2000 Randy Moss, 1991 Michael Irvin, 2005 Steve Smith, and 2002 Marvin Harrison. In case I was wondering whether Bill really does have to work hard to think of column ideas, this cements it for me. The same guy he fawned over less than four months ago as possibly the greatest receiver in NFL history doesn't make the cut as one of the best four receivers that Bill would like to see face Richard Sherman. Bill doesn't care about what he writes anymore.

Q: While everybody gushes about how quickly the 49ers have become contenders under Harbaugh, what’s ignored is that they have also mastered the mysterious art of the Pre-2004 Red Sox of getting thiiiiiiiiis close and then losing in the most painful way possible. First it was Kyle Williams, who needed only to literally do nothing and walk away to avoid a punt to beat the Giants in regular time, then he fumbled another punt in OT. Against Baltimore, they get to the 5 and call the four dumbest plays imaginable to lose. Then against Seattle, they get into the red zone, 35 seconds left, 2 timeouts. And they call a fade. Thrown by a mobile QB who isn’t a static pocket passer. Into double coverage. Against Richard Sherman. On 1st down.
—Drew, Raleigh, North Carolina

So now Bill is going to call a team that has made the NFC Championship Game the last three seasons and the Super Bowl once in the last three seasons as a tortured team. At a certain point, every professional franchise will have been called tortured by Bill. It's his schtick though, to wallow in misery, so he has to keep going with it.

SG: Glad Drew brought this up. Has another NFL team made the Final Four for three straight years, had a legitimate chance to win all three games late, then lost those games in legitimately agonizing ways? My gut feeling was “no,” but we have this thing called “the Internet” that allows us to look up useless crap at all hours of the day. Well … since the AFL-NFL merger in 1970, only Philly (2001-04), Buffalo (1990-93), Oakland (1973-75), Dallas (1980-82) and the Rams (1974-76) played in at least three straight conference title games without winning the Super Bowl. None of those teams lost three straight “heartbreakers,” which means the Niners made tortured football history.

The 49ers did lose those games in miserable ways, but I still find it very, very hard to call them a tortured team. Unfortunately for Bill, he cheers for Boston-area teams so he's lacked all perspective over the last decade on what cheering for a tortured franchise feels like. So what results is he calls the most successful NFC franchise over the last three years "tortured" and doesn't think anything about it.

Q: How amazing would it be if the next Beats by Dre “Hear What You Want” commercial was Obama walking into the State of the Union address? 

It would be phenomenal if Obama made a mockery of the President's annual address to Congress and the country. It would be even more cool if Obama just rapped the whole time he was at the podium for the State of the Union address. That would be awesome too.

SG: Wait, why can’t we have the “Hear What You Want” commercial with Obama AND the WWE entrance for his next State of the Union? Why do we have to choose? Just steal Vince McMahon’s entrance music and be done with it.

Reading Bill's writing is exactly like having a conversation with a friend of yours. Unfortunately it's like having a conversation with that friend you don't really like anymore, but just hang out with because you feel bad for him.

Then Bill posts two more YouTube videos because killing space is important when you don't have anything to write about.

Q: After watching the NFC championship game and watching Sherman’s rant about who knows what, I proceeded to take the garbage out. I somehow forgot the recycling bin and about an hour later my girlfriend proceeds to start screaming at me about the recycling bin for three seconds, then changed and went on three different tangents that involved the words laundry, toilet seat, and remote that all intertwined and from an English standpoint made no sense. I know you’ve been there. 

Of course Bill has been there. Haven't you read "The Book of Basketball"? Women are either strippers, pornstars or total bitches. Bill's bitch is always crying about something he has or hasn't done. That and making babies is all women are good for.

It seems this reader's girlfriend belongs to the "School of Cliched Complaints by Women" or he is making this story up. A woman complaining about a man not doing laundry, not lowering the toilet seat and anything involving the remote is so cliched that even beer commercials won't use these cliches in their commercials anymore.

Can we coin this phrase getting “Richard Sherman’ed”?
—Mike D., OCNJ

No. We can call it, "Stop whining about your girlfriend to a misogynistic media personality who you seem to believe out of pure desperation is your friend."

Q: Once upon a time, your nickname for Pete Carroll was Coach Fredo. But what if when Fredo was sent to Vegas (USC) to learn the casino business, he defied all odds and kicked ass? He didn’t take shit from anyone and effectively ran a casino or two. He gained confidence, learned a few valuable lessons along the way, and came out of his shell. Then he went back to New York (the NFL) and with his newfound wisdom and toughness, FREDO became the one who settled all family business and took over the Corleone family. Too big of a stretch?
—Jeremy, Portland

SG: well … I wrote this: “It took Carroll two years to destroy a Super Bowl team (in New England), and after he left, it took the Patriots two years to win a Super Bowl. You couldn’t do worse. Even Fredo has ‘banged two cocktail waitresses’ on his résumé. Now, this was a good 10-plus years ago, and I was smoking a ton of pot back then, but I specifically remember thinking to myself in 1999, “Pete Carroll is definitely not meant to coach professional football or pick the players.”

Look, I don’t know where this ranks on the “Worst Simmons Predictions” ever list — a really, really, really, really, staggeringly long list, by the way — but it has to crack the top 10.

Bill's comments about James Harden as he was coming out of Arizona State has to be somewhat high on this list as well. It does seem like Bill is showing some humility here, but I don't believe it's authentic. It's hard for me, someone who believes Bill has a very large ego mostly due to the fact he thinks he speaks for sports fans everywhere, to believe Bill is capable of true humility.

I wish I could email this paragraph back to 1998 Me — he wouldn’t believe it. (Also: 1998 Me would say, “Wait a second … you’re still writing mailbags in 2014??? That’s impossible! Weren’t you the guy who promised that you’d never become a middle-aged sportswriter?

Fortunately for Bill, he isn't a middle-aged sportswriter because he would actually have to write weekly columns to be considered a sportswriter. He's a middle-aged media personality. He's like Rick Reilly, he just doesn't write as often.

Wait, you’re making HOW MUCH?

By the way, Bill is making a lot of money. He can't emphasize this to us enough. He's rich. I would call this a non-covert brag, but I'm not sure Bill was trying to be covert.

I AM ABSOLUTELY HALLUCINATING THIS!!!!!!! I NEED TO STOP BUYING THIS SKUNK WEED FROM NEW HAMPSHIRE, IT’S MAKING ME CRAZY!!!!!!!

This is a good example of what I'm talking about where Bill wants to make himself younger than he is and his readers want to view him as the "cool dad." Bill smoked pot! He's talking about it! How cool is he?

Q: I present to you the last two years of football/basketball first round selections in Cleveland: Trent Richardson (3rd), Brandon Weeden (22nd), Dion Waiters (4th), Tyler Zeller (17th), Barkevious Mingo (6th), Anthony Bennett (1st), and Sergey Karasev (19th).
—Thomas, Cleveland

I'll play this game and outright defend the Tyler Zeller and Anthony Bennett picks. I didn't really like the Waiters pick too much at the time it happened, though he hasn't been an outright bust.

I still like the Ty Zeller pick and think he deserves more minutes. He's not a starter, but he's a good backup center who can play the Big Z role on a good team. It's way too early to judge Anthony Bennett. I may end up feeling stupid, and while I wouldn't have drafted Bennett #1 overall, he has a diverse skill set that he has yet to show in the NBA. He's young, give him time.

Q: So this shirt exists. And as proof of how bad it is to be a Chiefs fan, my thought was “Do they mean playoff victory?” Because that seems like an admirable goal at the moment, and I’m 30.
—Aaron Schmidt, Santa Monica

If you are 30, then you know the Chiefs won two playoff games in 1993 and one playoff game in 1991, which is well within your lifetime. So this admirable goal has already happened.

Q: From the opening kick of the 2013 season through Week 17, which three NFL coaches drank the most alcoholic beverages among all 32? Location, bad luck and quality of the team had to play into it, so I am heading north and in some order guessing Mike McCarthy, Doug Marrone and Rob Chudzinski.
—Rock, Jacksonville

SG: I’m going McCarthy, then Marrone, then Chud.

Bill just essentially repeated the exact same order that Rock from Jacksonville had already laid out. As opposed to writing, "I think your order would be correct," Bill acted like Rock's "in no particular order" wasn't actually what he considered to be the right order. It's a small thing, but one more reason why I think Bill tries too hard to be the most clever guy in the room and one-up his readers.

Q: Who are the top five current starting QBs (in order) that need a Super Bowl win? It can be any reason from “He can’t seem to win the Big One” all the way to “He hasn’t won anything since Spygaye.” My list would be: (5) Philip Rivers (both Eli and Big Ben have two and Rivers had more weapons);

First off, what's "Spygave"? Second, I'm too lazy to break down which QB had more weapons, but Roethlisberger seems to have had a more dominant defense (as did Manning when it came to the playoffs) than Rivers has had through his career and Manning has had Hakeem Nicks, Victor Cruz, Jeremy Shockey and Plaxico Burress at wide receiver/tight end while Roethlisberger has had Heath Miller, Plaxico Burress, Hines Ward, Antonio Brown, and Mike Wallace at wide receiver/tight end. Rivers has had Tomlinson, Gates, Vincent Jackson, and Darren Sproles. It's hard for me to say which quarterback had better weapons, but defense should be taken into account as well.

(4) Tom Brady (to stick it to those saying he hasn’t won since Spygate); (3) Jay Cutler (Pro Bowl weapons everywhere, recently got a huge payday);

Jay Cutler has Pro Bowl weapons everywhere? He has Matt Forte, Alshon Jeffrey and Brandon Marshall. They all made the Pro Bowl this year (a year in which Cutler got injured for part of the season) and he hasn't that many offensive weapons make the Pro Bowl in year's past. Plus, Cutler hasn't ever had a great offensive line in front of him. I think it's unfair to claim Cutler has Pro Bowl weapons everywhere when this is only been true for one season when Cutler was injured.

SG: I’m answering this question in ascending tiers. Tier 1: Eli, Big Ben, Rodgers, Flacco and Brees, all of whom could absolutely use another ring for career cachet (and in Eli’s case, needs it for his Hall of Fame case).

I disagree with Rodgers and Flacco. They are both still in the prime of their careers and haven't reached the stage of needing another Super Bowl ring yet.

Tier 2: Andy Dalton, who could at least be remembered in a Brad Johnson/Trent Dilfer–type of way with a ring. 

Terrible. Dalton has been in the NFL for three seasons and if Bill really wants to make the parallel to Johnson/Dilfer then he should also know both Johnson and Dilfer won a Super Bowl with a team that didn't originally draft them. So make the comparison, but understand what you are saying when making the comparison. Dalton is still young and for the comparison to hold up he would need a Super Bowl ring with a team other than the Bengals.

Q: Is this Super Bowl the worst possible scenario for us Boston homers?

Shut up and go cry into the multiple championships Boston-area teams have won in the past 10 years. The worst possible scenario for Boston homers is to not have a local sports franchise win a championship over a five year span. Then we could really see what spoiled brats the fan base has become.

SG: But I’ll try to be objective here.

Which is utterly impossible for Bill considering he knows very little about other professional sports franchises (not including the NBA of course) and only has the capability to make a comparison that involves a Boston-area team. After all, he's the Boston Sports Guy.

For Boston fans, “Brady vs. Manning” has been the “Russell vs. Wilt” or “Bird vs. Magic” for this generation. 

It's a solely Boston-focused question that gets a solely Boston-focused answer. The odds of Bill ever answering a city-specific question with a city-specific answer that doesn't mention a Boston-area athlete is not high.

Now, throw in the Seattle component — an unquestionably tortured sports city that hasn’t won a title since 1979, suffered through some amazing so-close-and-yet-so-far Mariners seasons, got blatantly screwed by the refs in Super Bowl XL, had the Sonics stolen away from them while David Stern did everything short of helping Clay Bennett purchase the getaway car (again, congrats on 30 great years, David — the ones from 1976 to 2006),

This was basically a copy and paste job from every column mentioning Seattle that Bill has written over the last six or seven years.

Hold on, it’s time for a quick tangent because nobody asked me this question and it’s illegal to make up mailbag questions. I thought for sure someone would ask what it’s like to have a Super Bowl week in New York City, especially because I am a longtime proponent of the “Super Bowl should only be hosted by Miami, San Diego and New Orleans in a three-city rotation and that’s it” theory.

Bill is at the Super Bowl, guys. How many times does he have to hint around this before someone comes out and asks him? He's looking out his New York hotel right now at Central Park which is located in New York. What more can he do to drop hints he wants to be asked about being at the Super Bowl in New York?

Well … New York City definitely passes the bachelor party/Real World test. And then some. It’s been freezing cold all week, obviously, but here’s a news flash: Jacksonville 2005 and Dallas 2011 weren’t exactly St. Bart’s. It’s going to be an absolute pain in the ass to get to and from MetLife Stadium, but you could say that about a variety of Super Bowls (Glendale 2008, anyone?).

This is a reminder that Bill has been to these Super Bowls as well. He's famous and gets to go to the Super Bowl anytime he wants to. This is a not-covert brag at its best. I love the "Glendale 2008, anyone" mention that comes off as smarmy and inside-information-y at the same time. Bill loves to tell his readers about all the cool shit he gets to do, but tries to do it in a way that doesn't come off as bragging. Somehow his lemming readers manage to not call him on this shit.

There are more than enough hotels and restaurants and bars and late-night food options and cabs and things-to-do-that-can’t-be-printed, that’s for sure.

Bill is so edgy.

Here’s my only nitpick: It doesn’t feel like it’s the Super Bowl.

That's crazy and I can't believe it doesn't feel like the Super Bowl. 

I’ve been here since Monday — it feels like any other week I’ve ever spent in New York City. You wouldn’t even know it was hosting the Super Bowl save for the 10-block stretch they carved out near Times Square.

Bill wants you to know he goes to New York a lot so he knows what a non-Super Bowl week feels like. He has many important documents to be signed, meetings to be held and people to meet and that's why he goes to New York. He's important. You must be aware of this.

Anyway, I’ve been to 11 of the last 13 Super Bowl weeks (only missing Tampa and Detroit). Ranking those cities in order from “best host” to “worst host”: New Orleans/Miami (tie), San Diego, Indianapolis, New York, Phoenix/Scottsdale, Dallas, Houston, Jacksonville, Jacksonville again, Jacksonville a third time. Whether New York climbs past Indy and San Diego remains to be seen.

So this is the answer to the question that no one gave a shit enough to ask about, but Bill assumed everyone cared so he asked the question of himself and answered.

"How come no one has asked me what it's like to attend a Super Bowl in New York as compared to attending a Super Bowl in all of the other cities where I have attended a Super Bowl? Surely someone must wonder my professional opinion and just forgot to ask."

Q: I’m interested to know if you think On Golden Blonde is the most extraordinary porno since Shaving Ryan’s Privates.
—Randy E., Oakland

SG: That was our 48th email. Look, at that, we’re suddenly in range! Bonus round!

So the whole "48 emails for Super Bowl 48" thing was a lie. It's not like Bill has control over how many emails he answers or anything.

Q: I finally got the balls and the idea to send you an email.

You're a huge pussy if you think you need balls to send Bill Simmons an email. I can see this reader crying while only wearing dirty white briefs as he sends the email to Bill, desperately afraid Bill will reject him.

Q: On the lameness scale, how high is watching the Super Bowl at home alone with your wife? No buddies, no poker, no profanity, no drinking. Please list the things you would rather do than watch the Super Bowl at home alone with your wife. I typed that again because I still can’t believe that’s what I’m doing on Sunday.
—Neil, Ottawa

Yeah! Because women are bitches that only serve to bring a man down!

Q: I need your infinite wisdom. Just got home from a great first date in Atwater Village with a girl I met online. I ordered a chai latte and a greek yogurt parfait, drizzled with organic honey with blackberries, blueberries and raspberries. I told my roommate this and he said my order alone had relegated me strictly to friend zone status with this girl forever. What’s your take?
—Michael, Los Angeles

My take is if you need the take of Bill Simmons about a date you went on then you have much bigger problems than whether you are in the friend zone. Also, are you Peter King? Why are you ordering food that's so haughty and dipshit-like?

Q: My tongue has been hurting me for awhile now and I finally went to the doctor today. First thing he asks me after looking at my tongue was if I had been eating a lot of cinnamon lately. I immediately started laughing and told him I drink a lot of fireball (had to explain to him cinnamon whiskey) and he Seems to think this is the problem. It’s quite coincidental that he led with that question if you ask me.

Not really. He's a doctor and probably has seen people with the tongue issue this guy is having before. It's not a coincidence, he's a doctor.

He put me on the fireball DL for 2-3 weeks which if I actually adhere, will be an awful time. My only hope is “fireball tongue” will forever be known as Brian Linner Disease (BLD) ala Lou Gehrig which is good news for Bud Light since my intake will skyrocket considering no fireball to compete with.
—Brian, Staten Island

(Puts on Ron Swanson hat) If you are going to drink whiskey, drink whiskey. Don't dress it up in cinnamon to water down the taste of whiskey. You can't be a man who claims to drink whiskey if you drink it with little bits of cinnamon in your whiskey. Cinnamon is good for coffee and spraying in the face of a person accosting you on the street, not for alcohol. If you are going to water down your whiskey, it's best to stick to Bud Light anyway.

Why You Regretted Taking Denver:

Frustratingly, Bill even puts "You" in the heading for his picks as if his readers are the ones making the pick and not him. He loves to say "we" and "you" as it pertains to the thoughts of people he has never met.

The Pick: Denver 22, Seattle 19

I missed this pick too. Finally, something I won't bash Simmons for getting wrong.